The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I have decided to begin this thread so that we can all predict the future in our own little way. Basically we will all pick a topic/subject etc and predict how long it will take to happen and why/how it will come about. I'll get the ball rolling -
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
How long will it take before we achieve world peace?
We will only achieve World Peace when the people of the world truly learn from their mistakes and evolve to the point that we as a race can learn to understand and tolerate other cultures without forgetting the traditions and backgrounds of the many people of this earth.
This will most likely not happen in my lifetime however man has come along way in the past 1000 years. Maybe we'll all find a way to live peacefully together in another 1000 years.
Page:
RoJ wrote:
> If someone came into my home, I would pulverize them. They have no
> right, they are intruding, they have the intent to steal, and how do
> I know they won't harm me? They would be a bloody pulp when I had
> finished with them. Barbaric some may think, but they asked for it.
> Sure, violence is wrong, but so is theft.
Locke would say that once someone intrudes on your property that person clearly has no regards for your rights and thus your liberties. This creates a State of War according to him, in which case you may justly kill the intruder lest he/she enslave you and force you to work until death on a large Ziggurat.
That is all.
> If someone came into my home, I would pulverize them. They have no
> right, they are intruding, they have the intent to steal, and how do
> I know they won't harm me? They would be a bloody pulp when I had
> finished with them. Barbaric some may think, but they asked for it.
> Sure, violence is wrong, but so is theft.
Locke would say that once someone intrudes on your property that person clearly has no regards for your rights and thus your liberties. This creates a State of War according to him, in which case you may justly kill the intruder lest he/she enslave you and force you to work until death on a large Ziggurat.
That is all.
How long before Racism is abolished?
I think...never, because of all the races one will always consider itself "superior" and that ethnic race "inferior". Even in thousands of years when many galaxies have been discovered and peoples views about God confirmed (or such is my belief) all the different races of the worlds will live together, and yet there will still be racism against some ethnic varities.
I personally think that racism is pointless and what does ethnic origin matter about how smart or nice a person is? It is my opinion that I would like racism to stop, but I feel this belief with never be accepted with so many groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis operating in modern times.
It is a harsh and barbaric society in which we live if people can enjoy other humans being killed in particularly disgusting and brutal ways, such as gasing and lynching, simply for their skin colour/beliefs, which is hardly their fault.
Similarly in the future, forms of racist groups will emerge, and maybe even more uncivillised, perhaps society is at its peak of evolution and then it will slowly start becoming as barbaric as it was hundreds of yers ago, thus un-evolving?
Racism will be around until all extremist believers (of those with different ethnic backgrounds and unusual religions [to them]) ahve become disabandend or until the world/galaxy becomes one singular race....who knows?
I think...never, because of all the races one will always consider itself "superior" and that ethnic race "inferior". Even in thousands of years when many galaxies have been discovered and peoples views about God confirmed (or such is my belief) all the different races of the worlds will live together, and yet there will still be racism against some ethnic varities.
I personally think that racism is pointless and what does ethnic origin matter about how smart or nice a person is? It is my opinion that I would like racism to stop, but I feel this belief with never be accepted with so many groups like the KKK and the Neo-Nazis operating in modern times.
It is a harsh and barbaric society in which we live if people can enjoy other humans being killed in particularly disgusting and brutal ways, such as gasing and lynching, simply for their skin colour/beliefs, which is hardly their fault.
Similarly in the future, forms of racist groups will emerge, and maybe even more uncivillised, perhaps society is at its peak of evolution and then it will slowly start becoming as barbaric as it was hundreds of yers ago, thus un-evolving?
Racism will be around until all extremist believers (of those with different ethnic backgrounds and unusual religions [to them]) ahve become disabandend or until the world/galaxy becomes one singular race....who knows?
the path to world peace is mutually assured destruction.
you looking at me funny?
*presses button*
*southern hemisphere evaporates*
there ya go
I kid!
you looking at me funny?
*presses button*
*southern hemisphere evaporates*
there ya go
I kid!
There never will be world peace.
You should be able to defend yourself in your own home, if the police won't do it you should at least be able to protect yourself, although there is a bit of a difference if you knock an intruder out then start torturing them etc.
Racism I don't ever see fully ending either. There are always malicious igorant people out there.
AI planes... 4 years til Icarus finishes uni then codes the thing. Realistacally not for a long time. At least not in a combat situation. It requires major multi tasking. A scenario: you take on several planes at once. Which one do you hit first? Or do you do a runner and try complete your bombing run? There are somethings a computer couldn't pick up on, like nervousness. AI against AI could work, but few countries are near that level of development. That is why I see remote operated aircraft being the more likely development.
You should be able to defend yourself in your own home, if the police won't do it you should at least be able to protect yourself, although there is a bit of a difference if you knock an intruder out then start torturing them etc.
Racism I don't ever see fully ending either. There are always malicious igorant people out there.
AI planes... 4 years til Icarus finishes uni then codes the thing. Realistacally not for a long time. At least not in a combat situation. It requires major multi tasking. A scenario: you take on several planes at once. Which one do you hit first? Or do you do a runner and try complete your bombing run? There are somethings a computer couldn't pick up on, like nervousness. AI against AI could work, but few countries are near that level of development. That is why I see remote operated aircraft being the more likely development.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> There never will be world peace.
God, all this "Never" stuff...
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look upon my works ye mighty and despair."
Anyone who knows what I'm talking about might understand just why my blood boils whenever I read or hear someone say "We will never do X".
HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?!?! What you MEAN to say is "We will never do this if the world remains as it is". But it never does stay the same, does it?
Let me give you an example; a number of eminent Victorian scientists announced that, after examing the feasibility of such a project, it was clear that mankind would NEVER set foot on the moon. One of the main objections was that "The distance between the Earth and the Moon means that we would need semaphore flags the size of a country in order to communicate".
Which, when read now, sounds laughable. But at the time, that was the main method of communicating over distance. So it made perfect sense.
To put it another way, how can anybody say "This will never happen", when for all they know something might happen tomorrow that changes all of our assumptions?
> There never will be world peace.
God, all this "Never" stuff...
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look upon my works ye mighty and despair."
Anyone who knows what I'm talking about might understand just why my blood boils whenever I read or hear someone say "We will never do X".
HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?!?! What you MEAN to say is "We will never do this if the world remains as it is". But it never does stay the same, does it?
Let me give you an example; a number of eminent Victorian scientists announced that, after examing the feasibility of such a project, it was clear that mankind would NEVER set foot on the moon. One of the main objections was that "The distance between the Earth and the Moon means that we would need semaphore flags the size of a country in order to communicate".
Which, when read now, sounds laughable. But at the time, that was the main method of communicating over distance. So it made perfect sense.
To put it another way, how can anybody say "This will never happen", when for all they know something might happen tomorrow that changes all of our assumptions?
I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most likely.
Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Belldandy wrote:
> I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean
> everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most
> likely.
>
> Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group
> grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Again though, that works on the assumption that the way the world works will remain much the same. That's not as assumption I'd be comfortable making. Especially as it's only taken us, as a race, a few thousand years to go from a Hunter-Gatherer society to something quite, quite different.
As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant force in the world?
> I still say the moment something threatens everyone, and I mean
> everyone on the whole damn planet, will be the moment it's most
> likely.
>
> Failing that there'll be a peace, but only because one nation/group
> grows overwhelmingly powerful. Which is a questionable peace.
Again though, that works on the assumption that the way the world works will remain much the same. That's not as assumption I'd be comfortable making. Especially as it's only taken us, as a race, a few thousand years to go from a Hunter-Gatherer society to something quite, quite different.
As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant force in the world?
Light wrote:
> As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be
> questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant
> force in the world?
I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position. There are still a few dangerous nations out there, as well as threats from various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who will act against them decisively.
In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not that world.
> As a quick point though; if you accept that such a peace would be
> questionable, why are you so happy for the US to be the dominant
> force in the world?
I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position. There are still a few dangerous nations out there, as well as threats from various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who will act against them decisively.
In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not that world.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position.
That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one nation isn't real peace.
There
> are still a few dangerous nations out there,
Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK I believe.
as well as threats from
> various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of
> them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who
> will act against them decisively.
Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
>
> In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not
> that world.
True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be either.
>
> I can think of a lot worse countries to be in that position.
That doesn't change your original point; an enforced peace by one nation isn't real peace.
There
> are still a few dangerous nations out there,
Which other nation has declared a war of aggression that has increased the risk of terrorism in the last year? Just the US and UK I believe.
as well as threats from
> various groups with no one territorial base and, to me, not all of
> them are interested in peace of any sort, there must be someone who
> will act against them decisively.
Right...so Dubya, by declaring a war on Iraq, a nation with exactly NO ties to Al-Quaida, and using lies to justify it...that's peace is it? A war that Rumsfield himself admits may well create more terrorists than it destroys...you're happy with that?
>
> In a more perfect world that someone would be the UN, but it's not
> that world.
True enough, and whilst you have the US riding roughshod over everyone else so that they get what they want, it's not likely to be either.
My God. This gets boring after the 110th thread.
Page: