NationStates Jolt Archive

The movie, last night on on-demand cable.

I actually liked it (being a fan of the animated version helped).

But, it brought up my "ultimate" solution to world problems.

In the movie, in 2011, a virus wipes out most of humanity, and the survivors are saved by a scientist who builds a high tech utopia.

This seems to solve a few problems:

1. Previous cultural, religious, and political systems are completely annihilated, replaced by the vision of the scientists.
2. Most of the people on Earth are gone, thus relieving all strain on the environment.


If the virus had been intentional (rather than accidental, as the movie implies), and had resulted in massive sterility rather than immediate death, would this (to any of you) be an acceptable way of implementing your ideal form of government and reducing the human demands on our ecosphere?

I'm presuming, of course, that you're the new ruler and designer of the new high tech utopia, population of a few million.

Depends. To preserve this society would I have to eliminate all women who routinely display acts of athleticism and strength completely at odds with the logical limitations of their body structure?

Heheh wicked so what you are asking is, if you was King(or Queen) of the world would you use youy power for the greater good, whatever the cost?

Depends. To preserve this society would I have to eliminate all women who routinely display acts of athleticism and strength completely at odds with the logical limitations of their body structure?
Well, if she's having sex with you on a regular basis...

Heheh wicked so what you are asking is, if you was King(or Queen) of the world would you use youy power for the greater good, whatever the cost?

Or would you implement your vision of government whatever the cost?

Socialism?

Communism?

Anarcho-communism?

Dar al-Islam?

Fred Phelps?

Neat film. Used to love the cartoon.

As to the question at hand, I genuinely like the idea of teaching my own clone for several generations. As for the idea of Eugenics, well, not really my cup of tea.

Or would you implement your vision of government whatever the cost?

Socialism?

Communism?

Anarcho-communism?

Dar al-Islam?

Fred Phelps?

That comes down to how right you belive you are to do so, and how do we tell what is the right course of action from the wrong? Some would say when you put your rights above that of another.

Nothing says utopia like genocide and other crimes against humanity...

Nothing says utopia like genocide and other crimes against humanity...

Well, so often, genocide and crimes against humanity are committed with no real goal behind them.

And, if the utopia works, none of those things will ever happen again.

Wouldn't that be worth it?

As apocalyptic comics go, I prefer the premise of Y-the last man. With me as the last man.

¬_¬

Wouldn't that be worth it?

No. Nothing would be worth it.

Wouldn't that be worth it?

Depends on if you side with Trevor or Oren.

Trevor makes the argument that it was only supposed to be temporary until a cure for the sterilization could be found. It was found, so there you go.

Oren argued that what they had was perfect and it should be left as is.

I can see both sides, but I'm gonna have to go with Trevor on this one and the line from the opening monologue: We traded our liberty for a gilded cage.

Depends on if you side with Trevor or Oren.

Trevor makes the argument that it was only supposed to be temporary until a cure for the sterilization could be found. It was found, so there you go.

Oren argued that what they had we perfect and it should be left as is.

I can see both sides, but I'm gonna have to go with Trevor on this one and the line from the opening monologue: We traded our liberty for a gilded cage.


It would be interesting if it was temporary, and if you had also demolished the religious, cultural, and political theories (by simply not preserving them) of the past.

Sort of a massive RESET button...

Pax Romana times one billion!

It would be interesting if it was temporary, and if you had also demolished the religious, cultural, and political theories (by simply not preserving them) of the past.

Yeah ... but they'd just come back.

Imagine them venturing out at the end into the forests and having new little city-states pop up all throughout. Eventually someone will want to take it all over ... probably in the name of some man-god.

Humans are silly creatures at best.

Yeah ... but they'd just come back.

Imagine them venturing out at the end into the forests and having new little city-states pop up all throughout. Eventually someone will want to take it all over ... probably in the name of some man-god.

Humans are silly creatures at best.

So maybe Oren was right.

So maybe Oren was right.

Like I said, I can see both sides. In that way, yes, Oren was right.

But I'm one of those idealistic hippie types that still believes in freedom to choose ... regardless of how much evidence there is that humans cannot be trusted with self-governance.

Sounds similar to the terror guys out of the Tom Clancy novel: Rainbow Six.

Yeah ... but they'd just come back.

Imagine them venturing out at the end into the forests and having new little city-states pop up all throughout. Eventually someone will want to take it all over ... probably in the name of some man-god.

Humans are silly creatures at best.
Sounds like the bad guys from The Road Warrior.
http://i7.tinypic.com/210g6c2.jpg

There has been too much violence, too much pain.
None here are without sin.
But I have an honorable compromise.
Just walk away.
Give me the pump
the oil
the gasoline
and the whole compound, and I'll spare your lives.
Just walk away. I will give you safe passage in the Wasteland.
Just walk away and there will be an end to the horror.

The movie, last night on on-demand cable.

I actually liked it (being a fan of the animated version helped).

But, it brought up my "ultimate" solution to world problems.

In the movie, in 2011, a virus wipes out most of humanity, and the survivors are saved by a scientist who builds a high tech utopia.

This seems to solve a few problems:

1. Previous cultural, religious, and political systems are completely annihilated, replaced by the vision of the scientists.
2. Most of the people on Earth are gone, thus relieving all strain on the environment.


If the virus had been intentional (rather than accidental, as the movie implies), and had resulted in massive sterility rather than immediate death, would this (to any of you) be an acceptable way of implementing your ideal form of government and reducing the human demands on our ecosphere?

I'm presuming, of course, that you're the new ruler and designer of the new high tech utopia, population of a few million.

which channel thing was it on on-demand, HBO, SHO, STZ?

Well, so often, genocide and crimes against humanity are committed with no real goal behind them.

And, if the utopia works, none of those things will ever happen again.

Wouldn't that be worth it?

Well, (I haven't seen the film so this may well be the case in the scenario) but that would require a constant 'culling' of the population, or just extreme birth control to contain, otherwise eventually humanity would just develop back to its previous state.

Of course, the question is would this happen before or after a different life form evolved to the point of making a serious rival?

The movie, last night on on-demand cable.

I actually liked it (being a fan of the animated version helped).


Really?

The only Aeon Flux I cared for was the orginal they used to show at the end of liquid television.

I thought the movie was awful, couldn't get passed the black lady with hand-feet and non-naked Charlize.

I thought the movie was awful, couldn't get passed the black lady with hand-feet and non-naked Charlize.
Well can't help you with the first one, but you can borrow my copy of 2 Days in the Valley for your naked Charlize fix. :D But I want it back. :mad:

The movie, last night on on-demand cable.

I actually liked it (being a fan of the animated version helped).

But, it brought up my "ultimate" solution to world problems.

In the movie, in 2011, a virus wipes out most of humanity, and the survivors are saved by a scientist who builds a high tech utopia.

This seems to solve a few problems:

1. Previous cultural, religious, and political systems are completely annihilated, replaced by the vision of the scientists.
2. Most of the people on Earth are gone, thus relieving all strain on the environment.


If the virus had been intentional (rather than accidental, as the movie implies), and had resulted in massive sterility rather than immediate death, would this (to any of you) be an acceptable way of implementing your ideal form of government and reducing the human demands on our ecosphere?

I'm presuming, of course, that you're the new ruler and designer of the new high tech utopia, population of a few million.
Absolutely not! Such an act would be tantamount to genocide. Choosing who lives and who dies, or in this case who can and can't reporduce would be like eugenics, which is often used as an excuse by the people behind genocides. If you hate the neighbors across the street, just sterilize them? And who would be designing this master society to fit this master race? You? Me? I certainly hope neither. I don't trust you if you have the slightest hint of a thought that this would work for the better and I don't think I'd be qualified. This whole notion is facism at its most extreme. Some 'Final Solution' you have there, DK, but I don't share your vision and I don't think I ever will.

If the virus had been intentional (rather than accidental, as the movie implies), and had resulted in massive sterility rather than immediate death, would this (to any of you) be an acceptable way of implementing your ideal form of government and reducing the human demands on our ecosphere?

I'm presuming, of course, that you're the new ruler and designer of the new high tech utopia, population of a few million.No. I would encourage people to be sterilized to help reduce overpopulation, but people are socialized to want children for whatever reason, so to suddenly become sterile would be psychologically harmful.

Perhaps a better solution would be a virus that makes most people gay. Children would still be born, of course, but at much lower levels, as most of them would be planned for with fewer accidents.

No. I would encourage people to be sterilized to help reduce overpopulation, but people are socialized to want children for whatever reason, so to suddenly become sterile would be psychologically harmful.

Perhaps a better solution would be a virus that makes most people gay. Children would still be born, of course, but at much lower levels, as most of them would be planned for with fewer accidents.

A virus that makes people gay... interesting idea. Actually, it also has its merits. Fashion designers would be rich, people would look good and have fun, society would keep turning. Not bad at all.