We are connected, but not united why?

[bhupendra2895]

We read in textbooks that world is so small, because everyone is connected by the means of cellphones and televisions.Well this is true that we are connected but worse truth is that we as a human race are not united.We are divided by the means of caste, religion, sex, country, money and color.Since the beginning of the history men are fighting with each other to satisfy the need and greed of powerful.Recent riots in Kyrgyzstan proves this.According to UN these were well planned.Even fastest growing economies like China was affected due to riots last year.
Even in this modern world there is civil wars going on in Congo and Somaliya.Terrorists are killing innocent peoples in the name of religion.Is there any end to this?
What do you think world can be united when we are exploring space and connected with each other?

 

[wongers]

well I think i understand what your getting at, your English is a little broken if i'm honest lol.

the world will always have conflict, this usually boils down to religion or politics (which either way is a power struggle between the masses lol).

i believe the world has never been more united. if we didnt have the technology we currently pocess then if you consider conflicts that are happening, consider how much longer these would take because world leaders would need to relay messages to each other, which would have to be done by courier and then what gaurantee do you have that the courier wont be KIA?

im quite interested in the exploration of space, but if im honest, i think progression in this area is too slow and we should focus on our own planet first. (but thats just my opinion lol)

 

[bhupendra2895]

wongerswell:

I think i understand what
your getting at, your English is a
little broken if i'm honest lol.

You are correct, although I couldn't guess mistake, may be because it is not my mothertongue.And that is why I got negative credit.Next time I will check grammer before posting, so other's won't have problem in understanding what is written.

we
should focus on our own planet
first. (but thats just my opinion
lol)

I agree with you.NATO couldn't end terrorism in Iraq or Afganistaan, but its members are leaders in the space and other technologies.

 

[wongers]

i personally think if we were able to unify our space programs, then our sucess rate would increase substantially, but to do that we need to sort out the petty arguments about whos got all the oil first lol. shame really.

 

[xav0989]

It is because of a simple but very present behaviour, rooted deep in our human brains. It is that we always want to be the leader, to be the top of the chain. This is a behaviour that was useful back in the days prior to the "civilized" world, but not as much anymore. True cooperation is almost inexistent, and unity will not come until true cooperation is present.

 

[shigekims12]

On the one hand there is greed. One person always wants more than the next. That is part of human nature, no, of animal nature. While man is no longer bound by the simple rules of animalistic survival of the fittest, greed still played an integral part in our evolution to our modern day forms. Having more is an imperative for survival. If that means taking it from your neighbor, then that means more food for you. To be fair, as a species we have also developed altruism as a trait. Without altruism, we would not have been able to develop communities, collaborate, and advance knowledge and technology as quickly. It is a battle however, because both greed and altruism still exist, and will always be at arms.

On the other hand, there is a problem in the differences of cultural or core moral values. There is no universal moral code, or "correct way" to live. This takes the form of varying religions, day to day behaviors, you name it. I could elaborate more, but I'll leave it at the obvious.

My opinion is that unification is not the answer. That will never work, because a splinter group will always form and break off, due to their identification of separate core beliefs. I think the answer to "connectedness" is coexistence. I'll define this as an acceptance of other races, cultures, and religious core values. Allow others to live by their own belief system peacefully, without the need for conflict to squelch it or the need to force your own value system on to other people.

 

[Brosert]

The irony of the internet. The internet connects people easily and quickly. This means that someone can access the world from their desktop. It also means the world can access them.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world is nice. Even bigger problem - not everyone in the world could possibly share the same opinions. Couple this with the anonymity that people feel on the 'net and you have a recipe for disaster. Radical thinkers try desperately to influence the thoughts of less radical people. Hatred grows as people adopt the pack mentality, and many people are naively swept along for the ride.

One of the fundamental failings of any text based system, is the lack of an ability to portray emotion or expression well. This means that people quickly misinterpret other peoples writings (posts, blogs etc). Add to this the fact that many people are trying to communicate using a language other than their native tongue and we have trouble brewing. Sarcasm really doesn't work on the internet, and causes rage. People fly off the handle when their opinion is challenged - even though the challenge is purely in their perception (I have, in another life, reacted badly to a posted response to something I wrote, only to realise days later the OP was probably agreeing with me). Forums and social networking are bad news in the wrong hands. Technical forums seem to be the worst - where some experts take it personally when people don't share their view (Open Source vs Commercial, UNIX vs Windows, PC vs MAC, c/c++/c# vs Java (don't even mention VB)).

Unfortunately (and ironically) even outside the internet, it is our differences that make the world a wonderful place. The world would be boring if everyone was like me - yet somehow I get sucked into the perpetual attempt to try to convert everyone to my way of thinking (which always causes nice fireworks - I was brought up Catholic, so I disagree with everyone). Worse still, people seem to feel as though they absolutely have to share their views with people whose opinions will never sway. There are people that will believe in Global Warming no matter what, and there are people who won't - no matter what. Often upbringing plays a large role in our attitudes and beliefs - whether obviously through culture, or less obviously through watching and learning from our parents.

People also tend to remember negative more than positive. In fact, our media exists on this premise. Car accidents, burglaries, war etc all make the news daily. If there were no car accidents today, how many news agencies would report on it? Peace sometimes briefly makes the news, but it is rarely (except in major conflicts) headline news - yet small armed conflicts and riots fill even the ads for news. I suppose because good is usually the 'status quo' we don't really care about it. If I play football (Aussie Rules, of course) I remember if someone hits me or breaks my nose, but I am unlikely to remember people who play fairer than the average opponent.

Short story: Humans get very attached to ideas. The fact that some people like NRL has absolutely no affect on my life. The fact that I like AFL has absolutely no bearing on theirs. Yet so often people will argue (seemingly to the death) that one is somehow better than the other. The world is a wonderful place because of it's diversity. The world is also a terrible, evil place because of it's diversity. Diversity makes life what it is, yet while we love small difference, we get frightened by people who have radically different views to our own. And people still use VB?

 

[mattblog]

most of the time its not the civilians of different countries hating each other or starting wars. Its the governments and terrorists. Most of the time like you said, its either about saving another country or about greed or religious beliefs. The governments help save and protect countries with terrorists or they want to get something from another country or the two countries are just rivals then the governments will start wars. however in this case, Us and Iraq Armies are joining forces to defeat the taliban in iraq. So in the end there will always be people fighting and government rivalry. It's just how the world works, it sucks, but when different people have different beliefs they are aught to disagree.

 

[dhennen]

Unity requires a shared goal.
A shared goal requires a moral consensus.
Moral consensus requires that truth be more than an opinion and that morality be more than an emotion. Otherwise, where we stand will always depend upon where we sit and never upon a shared principle. Then social order degenerates into every man for himself.

Modern means of communication can never build a shared principle, nor an objective standard of truth or morality because these means are all just ways of sending messages. Messages do not equal communication. Look at a typical conversation, especially in a large group. Everyone is talking, no one is listening, and ideas are not being made common between the yammering parties.

While religion, politics, and allegience to "great ideas" are always blamed for strife and war, they are also the only ways to build the shared principles necessary for some sort of unity. World War II contains a case in point. Soldiers kept in Japanese-run prisoner of war camps had a 60% mortality rate because they were not treated decently. Soldiers kept in German-run camps had only a 2% mortality rate, because they were treated decently. In both cases, the captors were dealing with their enemies, but because Germany was a part of Western Civilization (albeit corrupted by Nazi ideas), they had a Christian notion of the humanity of their captive prisoners that was missing in the Japanese culture.

While a partial rejection of Christian-based ideas on the part of Germany had them at war with the rest of the Western world, it was less uncivil than it could have been because some vestage of their common moral heritage still existed. Had the religion, culture, and great ideas of the region stayed intact in Germany there would have been no war at all.

Our present state of violence reflects a similar degeneration of religion and culture. For example, the radicals who flew the planes into the World Trade Center claimed to do so in the name of Islam, but interestingly, the Grand Mufti of Mecca said that they were now in Hell, because the Quran forbids suicide. I have seen lists of Quran citations forbidding most everything terrorists do in the name of their religion.

This is a problem deep in the minds and souls of multitudes of people, and merely sending messages past each other at an overwhealming rate cannot begin to remedy it.

 

[ataarticles]

Our present state of violence reflects a similar degeneration of religion and culture. For example, the radicals who flew the planes into the World Trade Center claimed to do so in the name of Islam, but interestingly, the Grand Mufti of Mecca said that they were now in Hell, because the Quran forbids suicide. I have seen lists of Quran citations forbidding most everything terrorists do in the name of their religion.

This is a problem deep in the minds and souls of multitudes of people, and merely sending messages past each other at an overwhealming rate cannot begin to remedy it.

So you really think it was the so called radicals that flew the plane into the World Trade Center?!
Maybe it was the U.S. Governement.
Well, why would the U.S. Governement do that to their own people?
Well let me start you off here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=loose+change+2nd+edition+full&aq=4

 

[dhennen]

Imagine this scenario: You're driving down the highway and a reddish car zooms past you like you're standing still. You say, "Man! That red car was really flying!"

Your passenger angrily rebuts you. "No! That car was maroon!"

And, a great big so what? We've missed the point with pinpoint accuracy. The point was that the car was going fast.

Similarly, my point in using the 9/11 situation was that it was a very non-Muslim thing for a Muslim to do in the name of Islam. It fell short of its own religious and cultural standard.

This was only a case in point, not the main point. Pick away at it if you must.

If our government brought the buildings down, that too falls short of the standard. The purpose of the government, if you read the preamble of the Constitution, is to provide for the common defense and ensure domestic tranquility.

Either way, there are people who are so rotten to the core that no matter how connected they are to their fellow man, they will never be united with him.

Just as an aside, watch out for conspiracy theories. Look at enough of them, and you will see that there are often several theories connecting all of the same dots very plausably and persuasively, but they don't all agree. That is to say that at most, one is true. The rest, plausible as they may seem, are not.

This awakens a healthy scepticism against the kind of cinicism that gullibly believes anything as long as it smells bad. Another source of scepticism is the point that began this very thread. We are not united.

There are powerful forces divided against each other, in our government. They could make much political hay exposing such a story. If this story were as manifestly true as the posted videos propose, the adversaries of the guilty parties would have been shouting it from the rafters, not helping to cover it up.

Sometimes things are as they seem.