Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grey Wolf on March 08, 2002, 10:01:56 pm
-
Disclaimer: I am not a psychiatrist, these are amateur observations. I came to these conclusions through the use of logic and my memory of history class.
Have you ever noticed the human fascination with death and pain? It dates right back through history, to Roman times. Thousands of people were slaughtered in the Colloseum, for three reasons:
1. They had commited crimes.
2. They had angered the emperor.
3. The emperor needed to placate the public.
The third one is the one that pertains to this subject. For hundreds of years, they gained the support of the Roman citizens through this slaughter. Also, they developed many methods of torture. And example: One Christian martyr was killed by being cooked on a giant frying pan. Later Europeans also were torturers. Ever heard of Count Dracula? Those tales were inpired by Count Vlad Dracule, often known as Vlad the Impaler. He lined his border with the bodies of his enemies mounted on stakes. The truly disturbing fact is that the bodies were put on there while still alive.
And it is not just limited to Europeans. The Aztecs killed thousands if not millions to honor their god, and Mongols destroyed the city of Kiev in Russia down to the last man, woman, and child for failing to pay tribute.
It continues to this day. People pay to see people beating each other into a bloody pulp in sports such as boxing and wrestling. Movies, such as the Arnold Swarchenneger (sp?) movies, war movies such as "Saving Private Ryan", and teen slasher movies also fall in this category.
My theory for the reasons for this odd phenomena is the history of humankind. As you can see by the skull design (forward-facing eyes as opposed to side-facing) and the types of teeth (the canines), we evolved to hunt prey. As we no longer need to hunt to eat, our hunting instinct is satisfied through watching the pain and death of others.
I would like to hear your opinions on this subject.
-
Yep, that just about sums it up.
-
I did get all the facts above right, right?
-
i can add a bit to Count Dracula:
His father's last name was Dracule, back then adding an a to the last name meant "son of", therefore the name Dracula, yes, that was his name.
It is believed, and well supported (dont ask me for details, i dont remember them from my human geography class), that he was very sensitive to sunlight, to the point where daylight would cause blisters very rapidly. This led to the myth of vampires melting in the light.
Also from the same source as above: it is believed that he found that drinking blood to be somewhat easing of this disorder
He enjoyed impalings, he would have people impaled in front of him at his dinner table. The lining of POWs on sticks was when he was in retreat after a major defeat. He retreated back to his borders and lined them with impalements to disturb the invading army in order to get them to turn back, which worked.
He couldnt stand the thought of poor and sick living in his country, so he gathered them all up, built a bigass dining lounge out of wood, brought in the poor and sick, brought in a big feast, sat at the head of the table, excused himself while the rest were still eating, and had the doors locked. He then set fire to it, and thus got rid of the sick and poor in his country.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
He couldnt stand the thought of poor and sick living in his country, so he gathered them all up, built a bigass dining lounge out of wood, brought in the poor and sick, brought in a big feast, sat at the head of the table, excused himself while the rest were still eating, and had the doors locked. He then set fire to it, and thus got rid of the sick and poor in his country.
Hmmm..... Didn't know that part :eek2:
-
He couldnt stand the thought of poor and sick living in his country, so he gathered them all up, built a bigass dining lounge out of wood, brought in the poor and sick, brought in a big feast, sat at the head of the table, excused himself while the rest were still eating, and had the doors locked. He then set fire to it, and thus got rid of the sick and poor in his country.
Holy hell! Even Hitler didn't have that kind of efficiency.
And I would like to poiint out one little thing:
If you let the sick people in your country die long and painful deaths you are pittied by others. If you round them all up and shoot them, you are a butcher. Now I personally think that is really f*cked up.
And back On-Topic:
The UN and the big players on the international scene seem to think that they can create peace and stop genocide by moving troops in and slaughtering the country doing the killing. Now this also seems very f*cked up to me. Whenever a small country brutally wipes out its neighbours in a very evenly pitched war they are labelled as being evil. But when the UN march in and start killing this country they are heroes.
No-one seems to realise that the Human race is about survival of the fittest. They try to make everyone equal and happy but it just doesn't work. Intelligence and strength usually result in a lust for power (survival of the fittest) but people stop them. For example, if Iraq had been allowed to continue its wars and whatnot with its neighbours then they all would have eventually wiped Iraq off the face of the planet. By intervening with less than total military support from Iraq's neighbours Husseins reign (which I have nothing against) continues to this day. War is good. It lets people rid themselves of threats completely and fully until only those advanced and enlightened enough are left to for a global governement and take to the stars in search of new wars.
-
her.... there's more and more strange topics around, these days :p
Just a quick note, we evolved from a hunter I guess, not toward.
Anyway, the need for violent scenes and stuff can be explained by one fact, according to some psychiatrists: our life is supposd to be very frustrating. That may make some people laught, but limitations like not being able to fight, eat, have sex, and all those things wild creatures can do whenever they want, may be against the human nature, which, after all, grew from a wild creature (tho it seems the ape theory has been trashed a few years ago, I learned that quite recently). So just like playing Midtown Madness or GTA3 woulld make you feel much better after a 5 hours long journey and you were the one driving (hemm, what? don't look at me like that!!!! :p ), watching movies and sports about this kind of stuff is probably the best way to cool down the stress induced by the lack of tbhe "real" stuff.
Voila.
-
War is good. It lets people rid themselves of threats completely and fully until only those advanced and enlightened enough are left to for a global governement and take to the stars in search of new wars.
I complete agree.:)
-
Originally posted by an0n
Holy hell! Even Hitler didn't have that kind of efficiency.
And I would like to poiint out one little thing:
If you let the sick people in your country die long and painful deaths you are pittied by others. If you round them all up and shoot them, you are a butcher. Now I personally think that is really f*cked up.
And back On-Topic:
The UN and the big players on the international scene seem to think that they can create peace and stop genocide by moving troops in and slaughtering the country doing the killing. Now this also seems very f*cked up to me. Whenever a small country brutally wipes out its neighbours in a very evenly pitched war they are labelled as being evil. But when the UN march in and start killing this country they are heroes.
No-one seems to realise that the Human race is about survival of the fittest. They try to make everyone equal and happy but it just doesn't work. Intelligence and strength usually result in a lust for power (survival of the fittest) but people stop them. For example, if Iraq had been allowed to continue its wars and whatnot with its neighbours then they all would have eventually wiped Iraq off the face of the planet. By intervening with less than total military support from Iraq's neighbours Husseins reign (which I have nothing against) continues to this day. War is good. It lets people rid themselves of threats completely and fully until only those advanced and enlightened enough are left to for a global governement and take to the stars in search of new wars.
so you're in favour of the Tallion law? mmh, interesting, but what ifyou were the weakest one? you'd sure not be happy if someone could come and kill you just because you're weak, and then he would fear nothing, no police would threaten him: coz he was right, he was strong, you were weak, so what he did was logical, and in this case, legal. Think about it. In a given social structure, you have to go against natural rules, or it's back to chaos. Think what you want, but during the early middle age, it was about what you describe. There was much more suffering and others, sick and poors were already slowly dying outside, etc. People always complain about what they don't have, but easily forget about what they have already.
-
Yes, there are many flaws in my ideals, most of which are due to basic human ignorance and small mindedness. My ideals do kind of collapse when you factor in stupid people. I like to base all my thinkings around the assumption that people would be clever enough to realise what was going on, but sadly they rarely do.
-
this is why countries form unions and alliances, and i personally think we -are- moving closer to a united world government, but it will take something big for it to take hold. Theoretically, a world government would solve all these problems but it is a proven fact that the human race doesnt like change, therefore people will want to hang on to their heritage and it could easily take a generation or two after the actual political movement for the idea to really sit with the people.
About Vlad, yes, my facts are (or should be) right, seeing as i got them straight out of my human geography teacher and textbook. If you disagree, please feel free to let me know, im as curious to know more as you are.
-
The world government should come about soon enough, I think in at least 400 or 500 years. :) It will go through stages; a few nations will join together to form a larger one, which will in turn join with another "nation block" to form an even bigger "block." The best example of this trend starting up is the European Union, which will probably be recognized as a single country in 50 years. The US, Canada and Mexico will probably also merge soon after due to their intertwined economies. At some point, all of these small unions will merge into one large republic. There will be nations who will refuse to join in order to preserve their "individuality," but they will not be able to economically and technologically compete with the massive nation and will be left behind in history as third-world nations, leaving only the big union to progress further. We can then have a true GTA. ;):D
-
I love pain, you should respect it, cause it wil show (let feel) tha your still alive.
-
Actually that's just how the techroom described the forming of the GTA ;) City states, nation states, world states, etc.
If someone was crazy enough to try a globalist movement and lucky enough not to get killed by every terrorist on the planet, it would take at least a generation for it to stick.
-
there IS a globalist movement.
its just being done in such a way its hard to recognise.
Just look at the patterns though, and it becomes apparent.
-
Actually that's just how the techroom described the forming of the GTA ;) City states, nation states, world states, etc.
hehe, you're right; I never thought of that.
If someone was crazy enough to try a globalist movement and lucky enough not to get killed by every terrorist on the planet, it would take at least a generation for it to stick.
Yeah, it would basically have to be done over at least a century. As LtNarol said, most people do not like change, and would not react favorably to a sudden shift in world power, but a gradual change over hundreds of years would allow the global state to encompass most of the world over time. :)
there IS a globalist movement.
its just being done in such a way its hard to recognise.
Just look at the patterns though, and it becomes apparent.
Exactly; the trends are subtle but they do exist, and it can be deduced that there will probably eventually be one massive nation. :) (although it might take a while)
Anyway, the need for violent scenes and stuff can be explained by one fact, according to some psychiatrists: our life is supposd to be very frustrating.
I think that humans have technologically risen above the other species in the world because of a desire to want that which they do not have, to ascend to higher levels of happiness. Technology solves problems and creates new problems, which are supposed to solved by more advanced technology, which in turn does the same thing. This trend may well be infinite and humans might never attain complete happiness, but that is good IMHO because it will lead to perpetual progress. ;)
Okay I think I am just rambling away; I'll stop here for now. :D
-
lol, I don't think so actually. Just a qucik exemple: basques that want to split up with spain. corses that want to split up with france, the IRA, etc... the trend among people is not to get together, it's to settle on old fashioned ways of living, and the pride of belonging to an ethnic group which has no real foundation excepted geographical ones. I'll take the exemple of Corse coz I know that better. The corse have the benefits of lower taxes, are kindda allowed not to respect the law (they build stuff when and where they want. In fact they have about all the advantages of being french and volontary left the disavantages. But no, they're not happy, they kill people when someone takes the incredible decision of destroying a crappy cabin built on a beach, they keep assaulting the police, etc. Well, they want independance :p ( I would like to see how they would live on their own, with no economy, no industry, nothing excepted tourism, but that's another pb :p ).
So go and talk to them about a global gvt. I guess about all the countries in the world have this kind of independantist groups.
You need much more than good will and commercial bonds to makje up that kind of things: you need the people to change , and it's probably the hardest thing ever to achieve.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Just a quick note, we evolved from a hunter I guess, not toward.
Actually, we at one point evolved into hunters. Our early primate ancestors were apes, and most likely herbivores (Ex.: Gorrilas), but by the time we started to evolve into a recognizable form, we were hunters.
-
"like clings to like" is a basic human instinct. Take a group of people of different ethnicity and heritage, put them in a large room, and they will spread out to be among others like themselves and away from those who are different.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Actually, we at one point evolved into hunters. Our early primate ancestors were apes, and most likely herbivores (Ex.: Gorrilas), but by the time we started to evolve into a recognizable form, we were hunters.
(gorillas aren't herbivores, they're omnivore and will eat small animals if they can catch one -ie if one is stupid enough to come right under the big ape's hand :p) I think the apes descendance theory has been scraped some years ago.
-
There are also other problems with a united world, poor and underdeveloped areas, such as parts of the Congo and subsaharan Africa are far behind most of the world, and they're not alone. This creates a huge gap between Europe/North America and these third world countries, a gap that will have to be eliminated because of political reasons.
This in turn means that large quantities of resources will have to be alocated towards industrializing these areas, improving their produce (which could take generations in Africa do to the deserts, much of which will have to be reclaimed), and their economy. If the more advanced areas do not help there more underdeveloped areas, the world government will lose support from just about every part of the world. So while i do believe we are heading in the right direction for a united world, we have a ton of obstacles to overcome.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
He couldnt stand the thought of poor and sick living in his country, so he gathered them all up, built a bigass dining lounge out of wood, brought in the poor and sick, brought in a big feast, sat at the head of the table, excused himself while the rest were still eating, and had the doors locked. He then set fire to it, and thus got rid of the sick and poor in his country.
FU*!!!!!
WOW!:jaw::eek:
Where'd you get these facts!?!
EDIT: Also, about the topic, I totally agree, but you missed one thing, and it's that the human race is obsessed with war. If you take away war, you take away the human sole. I know it's kinda wierd, but, if you look at it, a lot of humans actually want war, like Hitler, Attila the Hun, Saddam Huesane (sp?).
Anyway,s that's my two cents.
-
Originally posted by venom2506
(gorillas aren't herbivores, they're omnivore and will eat small animals if they can catch one -ie if one is stupid enough to come right under the big ape's hand :p) I think the apes descendance theory has been scraped some years ago.
I mean that they do not actively hunt prey. Also, we did evolve from an early primate.
-
War is good
You'd make a good Shadow...
-
the three infamous questions:
"Who are you?"
"What do you want?"
"Who do you trust and who do you serve?"
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
the three infamous questions:
"Who are you?"
"What do you want?"
"Who do you trust and who do you serve?"
"And do you like pickels on your hamburgers?"
-
< edited because post didn't make any sense :p >
-
I Didnt' say it would be a DEMOCRATIC globalist movement.
anyway...if you think about it we havent socially come very far since the middle ages.
All we've done is swapped a hereditary aristocracy that was to all intents and purposes bred for wielding such power for a corporate aristocracy that is made up from ordinary people that get a break in life.
The only difference here is that in our society, the power people get from their money is more than they can handle.
You could say the same about feudal systems, monarchies or dictatorships, but in each one of those other societies, things dont keep falling apart at the seams.
It looks to me as if we're headed for a feudal system that looks like a democracy to anybody who's not informed.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
the three infamous questions:
"Who are you?"
"What do you want?"
"Who do you trust and who do you serve?"
her... "live for the one, die for the one"? :p
-
Ultimately the Earth will reach one of two states and eventually an inevitable third state:
1) Through war, disease, disaster and democracy the world will unite under a single facist state
2) Through war, disease, disaster and democracy the world will decend into complete anarchy
And the 3rd state:
3) Consumed in fire, and not in darkness the Earth will be gone. Be it through super-nova or anti-matter.
Not matter the place, Humans will fight wether they believe in their cause or not for it is in our nature, every one of us, to be leaders even if we only leader ourselves and even if it be into our graves.
The 'Dying for what I believe in' way of thinking is instilled in pretty much everyone and as such the people who are about self-preservation inevitably go down when the retards decide to die for the cause. Humans as a species (and mostly as individuals) are stupid, simply because they believe that no matter their mistakes in life, they will be forgiven in death. WRONG.
Even if a global government comes about there will be those who oppose it and they will do so with fire and pain. In the end everything is doomed so we might as well have as much nationalist, anarchic, genocidal fun as we can.
(Hey, I would make an excellent Shadow)
-
I dont think theres anything you can beleive in thats worth fighting for. Unless its something you DONT beleive in that people are trying to impress on you.
Apathy rules.
-
what you say may or may not happen, my opinion is best summed up by this quote: "I know not what weapon world war III will be fought with, but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones."-I think this was Einstein, bit i could be wrong...
-
uh...I think I posted in the wrong topic earlier; please ignore my previous post. :o:p:D
The 'Dying for what I believe in' way of thinking is instilled in pretty much everyone and as such the people who are about self-preservation inevitably go down when the retards decide to die for the cause. Humans as a species (and mostly as individuals) are stupid, simply because they believe that no matter their mistakes in life, they will be forgiven in death. WRONG.
LOL, very true; this is another common part of human nature. ;)
lol, I don't think so actually. Just a qucik exemple: basques that want to split up with spain. corses that want to split up with france, the IRA, etc... the trend among people is not to get together, it's to settle on old fashioned ways of living, and the pride of belonging to an ethnic group which has no real foundation excepted geographical ones. I'll take the exemple of Corse coz I know that better. The corse have the benefits of lower taxes, are kindda allowed not to respect the law (they build stuff when and where they want. In fact they have about all the advantages of being french and volontary left the disavantages. But no, they're not happy, they kill people when someone takes the incredible decision of destroying a crappy cabin built on a beach, they keep assaulting the police, etc. Well, they want independance :p ( I would like to see how they would live on their own, with no economy, no industry, nothing excepted tourism, but that's another pb :p ).
So go and talk to them about a global gvt. I guess about all the countries in the world have this kind of independantist groups.
You need much more than good will and commercial bonds to makje up that kind of things: you need the people to change , and it's probably the hardest thing ever to achieve.
Yeah, there are a lot of these small groups trying to resist the globalist movement, but the difference between their efforts and those of the pro-world government people is that they aren't really getting anywhere, because for all practical purposes, their arguments will actually lead to the downfall of the nations they represent in comparison to the world government. For example, the EU is the only way that Europe will be able to match the US economically; the individual nations cannot quite match the US but united they can definitely compete.
I think one of the longer phases of the formation of this government will be when there are five or six independent blocks controlling the world : probably US/Canada/Mexico in one, all of Europe in another, most of Asia (including Australia and New Zealand), all of the South American nations, all of the African nations (including the middle east ones). The world will probably be in this state for quite some time, but these will eventually merge as well.
As you said, people resist change as a part of their nature, but they do not do so as readily when the change is very subtle and hard to notice. (it would have to happen over hundreds of years, as I said earlier) This can be seen in various places throughout history. ;)
While I think that there will be a segment of the world's population that will resist a global state, they will basically become non-player's in human history and could be considered for all purposes insignificant. As I said earlier:
There will be nations who will refuse to join in order to preserve their "individuality," but they will not be able to economically and technologically compete with the massive nation and will be left behind in history as third-world nations, leaving only the big union to progress further.
The other possibility (not as probable IMHO, but still possible) is that the small nations will react violently to the establishment of a world government, particularly if anyone tries to push them into it. If this occurs, then the quote that LtNarol posted will unfortunately become a reality; there are the nuclear weapon ban treaties and such, but in full-out wartime the only law out there is survival of the fittest. I think that this is a somewhat remote possibility though. ;)
-
Our fascination with death & destruction, etc, is possibly to do with facing our own mortality, as we no lonnger (here at least)have the same amount of 'public' deaths and wars. No plagues, no executions.
The other thing is that it offers a way of releasing violent emotions / impulses - possibly the only way. It's a similar thing with competitive sports, or with people trying to overtake the person ahead of them on the motorway.
Oh, and if anyone is talking about a globalist movement, just look at Orwells 1984.... much - if not all - of it still rings true, especially the wagin of a war in the only 'free' area in the world - Africa - to distract the public from their own opression.