We can put a man on the moon ....
December 22, 2009 8:53pm CST
We can put a man on the moon - but we can't cure the obscene inequalities in the world. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't fix up our environmental mistakes. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't cure world wide poverty. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't stop politicians sending our young men and women to kill each other. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't find a way to create religious and racial tolerance. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't find a way to stop corporate greed or bureaucratic stupidity. We can put a man on the moon - but we can't give women equal rights. Why is this? Is it that we can put a man on the moon because we have enough people with the will to do it, but we can't do those other things because we CAN'T find enough people with the will to do it? What do you think? Lash
29 Dec 09
As for putting a man on the moon, it is a long time since that was done. Is the will still there to do such a thing. We have the money to cure the world of poverty but the rich need the poor to exploit so they do not want poverty to end. We might be able to stop religious and racial intolerance but it would take a desire to be nice to other people and there does not seem to be much of that in the world any more. People find it easier to hate than to love, especially those who desire power. Religious leaders and politician have always desired power over others and they use intolerance as a weapon to gain such power. The same is true of corporate greed or bureaucratic stupidity. To stop those would take true political will to fix the world and inequality and there are too many greedy people who do not want this to change so it does not. Any time someone tries to change it he/she is removed or converted to greed. As for women getting equal rights that is also a case of men not wanting change. It is interesting that the women who rise to the top seem to be just like the men before them. It is a shame that society consistently allows these selfish, greedy people to rule them. People seem to think that if you are not selfish and greedy then you are too week to hold power. The odd few who seem to be honourable either get corrupted by the power or crushed by the others. I do not believe we are basically nasty. I have never agreed with Hobs on that. The trouble is that the nasty rise to the top with their evil intent and set up a society that socialises people to be just like them or they get wiped out. This is very sad. I sometimes think that the sci fi writers are correct and that we are heading towards that nasty war between the rich and the poor where current civilisation is almost wiped out. Maybe then they can start and build a new one that is fairer. All it takes is enough people to be educated to think along those lines. There will always be greedy, nasty, selfish people who want to take over and have everything for themselves but most people are not like that. I believe it would be possible to change the entire way we do things. Provide everyone with basic food, clothing and shelter with an bonus system that offers extras to those who are willing to contribute ideas and energy beyond the basic requirements. It would take great will power to alter the ancient system of wealth through inheritance to one through merit only. I have seen a few sci fi writers explore the concept and it make sense to me. I suspect that all of the right and left wing people would oppose it and yet both their systems are total failures at creating a world that is fair for all.
29 Dec 09
A new start would only work if the bulk of people were comfortable. It is poverty and oppression that breeds hatred and war. I really believe that it would take generations. Maybe a society such as that depicted in "The Gate to Women's Country" could make it work it would take some clever people and a major catastrophe to occur before such a system could be designed. It also does not allow for the intelligence of the men and women who desire this total domination.
23 Dec 09
there was motivation to put a man on the moon (competition with the hamlet next door at that point i think) but on the whole people are pretty selfish and can't be bothered getting together to solve any of these other problems. as a species we are not really very nice. (as individuals we can be)
23 Dec 09
The constant there is Man, the opposing is the actions of each and every man or person. The meaning for that for me is one " NO MAN IS AN ISLAND" meaning you can put man in any where you want but he cannot live on himself alone to fix everything and questions he have in mind. Even the president cannot comprehend at all meaning he need another person or community to follow him. I mean, one is dependent of the other. There must be a leader and follower to give solutions to any problems. That, whatever man do in his actions is a responsibility. That, it is easy to be a man and be putted in any place but solving inequalities and differences in every person needs is impossible to achieve. For no man is perfect and even GOD needs companions to deliver his messages and make things appropriate in his will. This inequalities cannot be solved totally but be lessened people have different views, principles and wants in life. It only brings the message that putting a MAN is not enough to be the solution for every problems. But, being a MAN to find, solve and make necessary actions to solve every problem. It is depending on his will to solve the problem and if this man fails to solve the problem, the only thing he can say is "he is only a man" who commit mistakes and cannot be perfect as everybody seem. Because if every man is perfect in solving each needs then he will be needing nobody to solve this for him.
23 Dec 09
As best I can make out, you seem to be assuming that I am looking for one man to take on these things, but that is, as you point out, an impossibility. I sought nothing to do with perfection, either individually or collectively, because it doesn't exist. My point is that we have the know-how, and when we join together, the ability as a species to do amazing things, but these require collective will to achieve. Why can we not achieve that collective will? And no, I am fully aware that the majority of people are too stupid, ineffective, apathetic, or pessimistic to be part of any such effort; but there is a large minority of people who are none of those things, and who could, if we developed the political will to make the effort, achieve all or most of those things I mentioned, plus the many others I could have mentioned but didn't. It is the inability to find the political will that I am questioning. Lash
2 people like this