Welcome to Gaia! ::

Discuss Humanitarian Org. Idea

Ideal Day Exercise Form
On your Ideal Routine Day you would:
live in what kind of location, if different from your present one?
probably none different

with what kind of climate, if different from present?
probably not different

with whom or what kind of person/s, if different from present?
one or more compatible companions, i.e. humanitarian woman or the like

have what occupation, if different from the present one?
doing significant work for a large, effective humanitarian organization

working with whom or what kind of person/s, if not the present one/s?
realistic, moral humanitarians

do what each morning?
some exercise, some online humanitarian work, or gardening

afternoon?
online humanitarian work

and evening, if different from present?
play with companion/s and maybe kids at least once a week

Thank you, Katelyn. I just returned from my lunch break. Do you recognize the value of discipline? That's one of the things I think Barbara Sher helps people learn. Also, she helps it to be fun, though it's not real easy to demonstrate that.

K: ... Humanitarian work, what kind ...? ... create a better standard of living ... or ... fighting unjust actions[?] ...
L: I think the most effective strategy would be to concentrate especially on fighting injustice, by ending major abuse of power, starting with the worst abusers, which seem to be many of the mostly covert operations of the major governments. Once such abuses of power are stopped permanently, people will be able to achieve prosperity for all quickly. As long as these major power abusers fail to be reformed, civilization will always remain in jeopardy. Si?

K: ... Realistic, Moral Humanitarians, what do you mean? ... ... going to require tremendous abstract thinking.
L: By moral I mean those who support all human rights for all. By realistic I mean those who reason well and are not hampered much by bad habits of thinking and behavior etc.

K: ... Online Humanitarian work: ... limit [to global] internet access[?].
L: I favor being flexible, being willing to do whatever seems most reasonable, but I expect for now that the internet is the best place for me to work on this. But I also plan to meet with people locally. And if an org that's suitable for me gets established, the org and those in it would make suggestions about where each member might help most.

K: ... How ... online ...? ... something like FreeRice where [x] donates [something]?
L: If an org gets going, it would decide most of that. I guess building this org is probably one of the first things to do. It would need to be non-authoritarian, using unanimous rule instead of majority rule. If it comes about, I expect it will come about by uniting some existing organizations and many individuals and also by being a lot of fun for nearly all involved.

K: I have a dystopia view of the future ... what part of the state of the world are you wanting to change or help with?
L: As stated above, I think the strategy most likely to be most effective soonest is to focus first on reforming the major abusers of power. Do you enjoy having a dystopian view, which I assume means pessimistic? Or would you be interested in finding reason to feel more hopeful? Do you play combative video games? I imagine those could make people pessimistic. smile

Do you feel the internet is just the easiest way to rally people to fight against the government?



Do you feel through Unanimous rule at the end of the day a decision can be made? Or do you think there would have to be some level of power to get something resolved and settled on? A final word kinda thing? Through Unanimous rule how do you get a final decision in cases of extreme conflict?




It doesn't entirely mean pessimistic, it's a darker view that sees the world tend toward chaos, and corruption. Utopian views see that the world can and will be a good place, and people will all get a long, we all live happily ever after. I just don't see how we can seek peace and all get a long without all agreeing to make the sacrifices to do so. Not without killing those that refuse to cooperate (Not in a dictatorship sense, more in the recognizing rights come from responsibilities thing) And I don't see how you can take down a corrupt source of power without going into war for it, the people versus the power.

Nearly everyone, but not everyone. So what about the people that completely refuse, and would never agree to some plan? Or if they do agree, it's in their morals to completely lie about it. I know in an ideal world everyone is a humanitarian and all agree, but that clearly wouldn't be the case. When you have two groups of people, the one that's ready to fight is going to win. And if you have a bunch of peace keepers, and a bunch of people willing to fight, and willing to sacrifice their life to fight. Whoever draws their weapon first is probably going to win.



That is not the US philosophy, the rights granted by the founders, all have responsibilities attached to them. If the responsibilities aren't met, the Rights don't exist.

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

For example the right to free speech, comes with the responsibility not to abuse it. The We have Free speech I can say whatever I want, is not true, you can say what you want, but you are responsible for what comes from that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You may have the right to guns, but you are responsible to protect the security when it is needed. You are to be ready to go war to defend your rights.

These are the parts that people forget.





I want to say there is better ways to get groups organized, though I also am still not convinced that persuasion works, that well. Right now a lot of the corrupt things going on in say US government comes from the fact that they're so divided between Democrat and Republican. It's an internal problem, not an external one. Though Internet has been good at criminalizing people in investigations, I'd be nice to hear it doing some good every now and again.



If you have to get a Unanimous vote for something that has to be decided in the next 24 hours, and people aren't agreeing with it. Does it get pushed off until you can all agree, potentially causing disaster with the future of the organization, or does someone come in and say we'll go with this, cause it got a Majority vote, and we just couldn't get one person to agree?



individuals are all selfish, the only thing governing us not to kill each other is the justice system, that tells us what is wrong, what consequences we will face for violating them. It'd be nice if we didn't have to be seen as groups, because certain groups, separated by age, political stance, religion, ect. They all have certain needs that contradict the needs of everyone. To truly change you have to convince each and every one of those groups, that their needs are similar to everyone else's, and you'll have to make sacrifice for what one group wants to please another. I believe you don't need force to deal with small scale problems, say 2 people fighting with each other can sit down and be persuaded. But I don't believe it can extend to large scale solutions because there is too much conflict.



I'd probably play devils advocate with others if they joined, I'm kinda in a transition between last year of University, and what I intend to do career wise. So I'm a little lost on what I consider my life goals right now, and I don't really want to think about it.

Blase isn't the right word, devils advocate is, playing the counter to one person's belief system, despite their own opinions or beliefs.

When I say I'm not really sure where my life goals are, it comes more from right now I'm really happy, I have great friends, a lovely boyfriend, and I'm not sure where I go after I graduate, I'm not sure where in the world I will be, or want to be, and it scares me a little. I have a sense of what I want to do, just not a sense of where I will be. I don't want to think about it right now.

I've always been afraid of changes in the future, When I graduated high school I knew where I would be, I wasn't sure who would be along with me, but I was ready for a change in environment. I hate moving forward without a plan, but I don't know what I want to exist in that plan.

I'd love to play more devils advocate, so you should answer those questions. I might get back to answering them another day though, cause I have a midterm to study for.

Not saying war is always the solution, but when one does sign up to fight they voluntarily give up their "rights" and understand that they may die.



Everyone has the responsibility to maintain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If those things are being violated, they are to defend themselves for those rights. If they are being violated with in their own government, it's a shame we give them so much power, but there is still a responsibility by all, if they believe those rights are important to keep to defend them. Children are just as responsible, we just give adults a bigger responsibility to protect the children, because of how we live in families. If everyone has the right to not be abused, they have the responsibility to help others not be abused. Though On a world scale, not everyone believes you have a right to liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and what they define as life can very greatly. Though I guess you would have to conquer peace one place at a time, And then when it'll come down to my countries peace is better then yours assimilate, and fight it out a few hundred years, and then peace is achieved, lather, rinse, repeat.



A few years back the parties weren't so divided, they are now, because the sides take such different beliefs, and the population itself is so divided in there needs, ageing population, young people student debt, the wealthy and the poor. When you have two parties to vote for, it's not all the campaigns that make you pick a side, If we held an election where all you read were the parties platforms and had to pick a who to vote for, I think we would see how divided the population is. The person that supports elderly health care, and increase in taxes on the working class, is going to vote for a different person, then the student who is just starting to be part of the working class, has lots of debt, and no way to make it back because it is going to the population needing different things in different groups. They aren't just experts at making a campaign favour one side or the other, there is real divide in society separate from political forces.



Sure supply some examples, though real issue with using peace as the goal, it's unclear what peace actually is, I think I'll leave this for the other thread though, maybe if you like you can add some of the examples there.



It's quite fun, I'll be taking a class next semester on ethics of violence and terrorism, so some of this might be useful.

This will be the second time writing this since I just had a glitch, so I may miss something.

When you go into war, you're signing over your rights, to protect the rights of the children and others, and many more in the future. So is it irresponsible to sign over rights? If they can't be signed over, you can't keep your rights defended. Because you have no one to keep the forces that may intrude on those rights at bay. I see it as Honourable that someone would be so willing to give up their rights for another. I don't really see how that can be considered irresponsible.





Ethics just means a discussion on what is moral, and what isn't, thus there is a discussion about ethics in terrorism. Using your argument that terrorism is unethical, then it's also unethical to fight back when someone has been committing terrorism. It's a discussion about what actions should be allowed to happen, and what should not. The current war is a bunch of B.S. may be true, but there's still a discussion about a better way to end the war.



You could join My guild River of polls, if you want a place that has a little more activity and a few members with some interesting world views. Or you could create your own guild about discussing Humanitarianism, World peace, general information. This guild is kind of dead, I don't think it's meant to have activity. It's an advice guild while this is turning more into an extended discussion. You might be able to find a guild that is more related, or go back to the create your own kind of deal.

I have until April Next year, then I will graduate, 10 more classes and whatever I have to do to get the 1.0 unit I need.