|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:55 pm
Why is it that in all my history with this guild (Which is longer than you may think) the people seem to think that controlling, or "Unifying" asw flip so chooses to embellish, tthe world is a simple task?
It's not easy, people!
Allow me to provide an example..
Say the american, british, and canadian govenments decide we're a threat?
BOOM We're in the slammer.
We fail to sccessfuly take the countries we want?
BOOM we're dead.
Somebody gets assassinated?
BOOM again.
I could go on.
I like the idea, but it's NOT easy!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:43 pm
Flip of Darkstar originally proposed that Darkstar (now Novos) take over the world to achieve it's goal of world unity. This idea no longer conforms to mainstream Novosian thought. Perhaps you should refresh yourself here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:14 am
NO ARMYS! >.<
army costs a hell lot of money
everybody will get communism we dont have to fight for it.
fighting kills people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:17 am
Stigmarta Martyr NO ARMYS! >.<
army costs a hell lot of money
everybody will get communism we don't have to fight for it.
fighting kills people. I agree, fighting kills people, and killing people is bad. However, war is still a reality every day around the world. It is a real possibility that war will prevent any human from seeing the day you spoke of. It only takes one nuke to kill a whole lot of people, we need peace before that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 11:20 am
Aperium Flip of Darkstar originally proposed that Darkstar (now Novos) take over the world to achieve it's goal of world unity. This idea no longer conforms to mainstream Novosian thought. Perhaps you should refresh yourself here. You misinterpret my words. You cannot simply "Unify" The nations in the world. If you wanted all the nations to act as a unit, you cannot have but one governing body in the world. Even then, people will have different ideas and form together in governing groups with those who share similarities. Call me Novos's "Constructive Critic".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 pm
Hicks_rule92 Aperium Flip of Darkstar originally proposed that Darkstar (now Novos) take over the world to achieve it's goal of world unity. This idea no longer conforms to mainstream Novosian thought. Perhaps you should refresh yourself here. You misinterpret my words. You cannot simply "Unify" The nations in the world. If you wanted all the nations to act as a unit, you cannot have but one governing body in the world. Even then, people will have different ideas and form together in governing groups with those who share similarities. Call me Novos's "Constructive Critic". Perhaps, but what you can do, is convince everyone that it's beneficial to work together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:13 am
Unification can come under many different headings. Maybe total unification isn't the way to go, but certain issues are easier to face (and others impossible to face without) unification. Scientific and environmental concerns are among those, I believe; especially environmental concerns. The atmosphere doesn't really give a rat's where you decide to place your political boundary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:45 pm
Aperium Hicks_rule92 Aperium Flip of Darkstar originally proposed that Darkstar (now Novos) take over the world to achieve it's goal of world unity. This idea no longer conforms to mainstream Novosian thought. Perhaps you should refresh yourself here. You misinterpret my words. You cannot simply "Unify" The nations in the world. If you wanted all the nations to act as a unit, you cannot have but one governing body in the world. Even then, people will have different ideas and form together in governing groups with those who share similarities. Call me Novos's "Constructive Critic". Perhaps, but what you can do, is convince everyone that it's beneficial to work together. Do you honestly believe that the governments can just be convinced that working for everyone else will help? The current powers as all other powers in history work selfishly for themselves, so do the organizations working them and the people who control them. There's a lot of pride that goes into working a government and nationalism is very strong in a lot of places. Then there's the governmental differences, like between capitalism and communism. I'm not, however, saying there's no way to do it. Perhaps, however, there's a simpler way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:26 pm
What needs to happen is a scare...but that is happening, and it's not working. Terrorism didn't work; the various Western nations didn't even consider changing their plans of involvement in the middle East, or becoming less selfish and more sustainable. Global warming didn't work; those in charge refuse to look at the data or the reasoning, both of which support sustainable action NOW.
At this point, the only thing I think would work would be an entire quarter of the world population dying in the next 5 years or so. I don't want to see it happen, but some scenario like that will happen eventually...and within our lifetimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:30 pm
Swordmaster Dragon What needs to happen is a scare...but that is happening, and it's not working. Terrorism didn't work; the various Western nations didn't even consider changing their plans of involvement in the middle East, or becoming less selfish and more sustainable. Global warming didn't work; those in charge refuse to look at the data or the reasoning, both of which support sustainable action NOW. At this point, the only thing I think would work would be an entire quarter of the world population dying in the next 5 years or so. I don't want to see it happen, but some scenario like that will happen eventually...and within our lifetimes. Really? I doubt it. Seriously. Besides, you just seem to be referring to the theological term of Armageddon anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 5:47 pm
Hicks_rule92 Swordmaster Dragon What needs to happen is a scare...but that is happening, and it's not working. Terrorism didn't work; the various Western nations didn't even consider changing their plans of involvement in the middle East, or becoming less selfish and more sustainable. Global warming didn't work; those in charge refuse to look at the data or the reasoning, both of which support sustainable action NOW. At this point, the only thing I think would work would be an entire quarter of the world population dying in the next 5 years or so. I don't want to see it happen, but some scenario like that will happen eventually...and within our lifetimes. Really? I doubt it. Seriously. Besides, you just seem to be referring to the theological term of Armageddon anyway. Suggesting that a quarter of the population will die is not necessarily a reference to the Bible at all. It is quite a logical conclusion, when you consider that the Earth is warming at an incredible rate, throwing the environment into mayhem, at the same time that the population is growing exponentially. And may I remind you that the current population can't feed itself; what is it going to do 61 years, when it is twice as large?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 8:49 pm
What Aperium says is right; environmental concerns for humans are only going to get worse in the coming years. For all that we are, we are still inherently animals, and severely overpopulated as it stands. Our social inclinations merely drive us to populate even more. And while the rate of technological solutions are increasing steadily, there isn't any support for environmental technologies.
Which is my point. We have the science to solve it, and if not that, the ability to influence our peers. But neither will be put into action unless enough people get scared...which seems like it would take an Armageddon at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:09 pm
Neither of you brought up pathogenic pandemics. Overpopulation allows for easier transmission between people. As people are forced farther out in to the remaining corners of the world, the population will become exposed to more new strains that cross species boundaries. It's only a mater of time before an avian flu, or such pathogen, remove the overpopulation problem from our hands. Either we find the solution now, and live to tell about it, or wait, and be among the unlucky ones affected by nature's solution to overpopulation.
The book Red Mars placed the date of global upheaval around 2040, I believe. It brought up a good point: even if we could go to mars, it couldn't solve our population problem. The people of Mars struggled and earned death trying to detach themselves from a hopeless world called Earth. It was sad, but quite believable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 8:34 pm
Aye...while I could try to save face and merely say that "pandemics are part of environmental concerns", I'll just admit that I forgot it.
But think about AIDS, then. AIDS is so horribly devestating that it started to bring all different countries together to provide for the poor and the sick. It's so horrendous as to bring scientists the world over together to help the poor and downtrodden and sick. It's a disease that obeys no political, physical, social, or economic boundaries; though education and wealth are demographically less prone, it still happens. The HIVirus can be in anyone.
But now even that support is starting to dwindle, with the US backing out the fastest. Canada now seems to lead the research initiative, with the EU providing as much social support as they can. But the US isn't paying for educational programs against AIDS overseas, anymore; what research we do accomplish is largely private or tied to the UN.
The holocaust came close to uniting many nations...AIDS came even closer. But even that didn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:37 pm
Not that it matters, but AIDS is one of the population related disease I meant to allude to. I was thinking, and I don't know whether education or medicinal research will provide the best, longest lasting solution. Education could slow, and eventually reverse the spread, but in the process, reduce unwanted population growth to. Medicine could find a cure, but that won't prevent the next one or slow population growth. Swordmaster Dragon The holocaust came close to uniting many nations...AIDS came even closer. But even that didn't work. AIDS still might, the problem gets worse each year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
