Future of EU...

[Signette]

This discussion is really drifting, taking all kinds of turns.

 

Those talks about us human race, globalization and our place in the universe are pretty exciting, but I'm gonna go a bit grounded about that. I really don't wanna believe that people are, in their majority, just complete idiots buying all out in the media BS, I would rather separate them in 3 groups,

1. Those who know the score and fine with it.

2. Those who simply don't care and also pretty fine with it (or not).

3. Media zombies (on either side of the front i.e. tolerasts or terrorists) as minority.

 

Can't say globalization or EU is bad or good. Those are the things neither of us can control, directing it to mutual welfare, and those who can - won't, because it's very-very not profitable. And calling to morals is so last century, so let's just drop it.

 

I'm not sure Europe without EU would function differently. The only real bad thing about it is EU Parliament where every chump will go all lengths just to get this dream job, and those chumps are usually appear to be politicians, who are able to screw over considerable amount of people.

 

Regarding globalization, well, any individual living in wealthy western state should realize where all this wealth comes from. If corps won't rape and wage wars against other, more unfortunate regions, people in the west would most likely live exactly as those people in aforementioned regions. So, as I see this, if you we've been lucky enough to be born and raised in one of these western states - be happy, if not - tough luck. Going charitable, sharing resources and all won't get neither country nor people anywhere. On a local example: how many beggars have you seen getting back to life from charity? On more global one: if any humanitarian organizations along with governments would really attempt to pour money and resources in some, say in poor African states, those would be simply stolen by local crime lords to reinforce their gang and people will get nothing (or get shot more often). There are very FEW examples in history where funding actually put states back on their feet, most attempts were for nothing. You can't create global military organization to keep everyone under the gun to simply control resource distribution, and it surely can't last forever. It's way more profitable to create local conflicts, sell weapons, get into drug business and drain resources under this cover to get yourself some serious bucks and keep your state in a good shape in the process.

 

Wanna touch surveillance theme. It's funny how people are paranoid about being listened and followed, living under watchful eye of "the big brother" in an age of facebook, where people under their real names posting their life in photos and posts... Are you serious? Firstly, I don't see person being really worried about being watched if he isn't involved in some criminal business, because what average Bob talking with his wife wouldn't probably interest anyone, and if that's the criminal under the watch, I sleep better. Secondly I don't have any social network page, I'm not registered anywhere under my real name, I'm not criminal, so I don't think anyone watching me, but if someone really wants, that would be Intelligence Agency who supposed to do that. I took care of my personal security, so no "average Bob" can track me down even if he really wants to, than why should I be worried?

 

Getting back to future of EU discussion, again, I don't think getting refugees in temporary isolated comfortable conditions can be even remotely connected to concentration camps. And those talks that "we should work together" won't get us nowhere I believe, because we have to realize that foreign people that come to European states are completely different, and I don't mean bad, I mean different. Now, just imagine you go for living in country like Iraq, you are ordinary, not fanatical christian. What will happen if you won't be following rules and customs of that country? You could get in serious trouble and even in jail for stuff like you can do freely in your own country which isn't anything criminal. Have anyone ever heard some minority of European origin in a middle eastern country ever going on protest movements because they are, let's pretend, offended that women are forced to walk covered from head to toe? Can you even imagine something like this? I think wherever you go, you must completely obey local customs, and you if are going for living than do your best to integrate which means: learn language, culture, abide laws and normally interact with local pop, not get locked up in a ghetto with doing everything the way you did in your old country. kvnchrist made a good point here, but i would rephrase and expand on it: why EU governments don't force newcomers to abide it's customs and laws?

[Unmod]

 

 

 

 

Can't say globalization or EU is bad or good. Those are the things neither of us can control.

 

Not really true. What is created could be uncreated. It's all artificial. It may not be the smartest choice but it's possible. The extent to which you can influence it is a self fulfilling prophecy - the more power you gain from it, the more influence you can exert on it. Negative interest rates is a good example. A huge number of economists say either you can't or shouldn't do it, but it suited the purpose so they went ahead anyway.

 

 

 

Going charitable, sharing resources and all won't get neither country nor people anywhere.

 

Unless you formalise it and call it a union. Then it seems to work pretty well. It depends how you're defining resources but in reality there's an awful lot of sharing and co-operation that goes on. One of the main reasons for EU existence is to 'level the playing field' so that all members can act at the same or similar level of development. That's why the structural funds exist and why some countries are net contributors and others net benficiaries.

 

 

 

why EU governments don't force newcomers to abide it's customs and laws?

 

Law is law and people abide by it or get in trouble. That applies wherever you are assuming you've got a functioning state. Consequences vary but that's largely down to the type of government and what they think is important. Custom is a social norm and unless you're in a particularly restrictive state it's just habit. You do it or you don't. Afternoon tea is a UK custom but the vast majority don't observe it so why should anyone be forced to? Forcing people to behvae in a certain way beyond the core principles of security and good order is a dangerous path to tread. You end up with drones and slaves.

[sunshinenbrick]

Somewhat peculiar the supposed bedazzlement around the nature of cultivated open discussion and debate (previously noted dirty supposition tactics aside). But then having said that...

If recent events and much of this discussion show, is that 'assimilation' is very flawed, however much logic is vehemently applied to it. Equally, a highly secular approach is frought with problems too. Humans are often illogical creatures, their actions contradictory to their ideas. Even so, I would most likely choose flexibility and variety over an adamant blindsided regime. The latter being what people seem so critical of when it is different to their own. How absurdly contrived!

Suppose this brings about the point made on the 'obsolescence' of morals. Morals are closely tied to 'free choice', and although I personally adopt a holistic like approach to this (a divergence of scale), it thus strikes me as ironic that the proposal of the importance of democracy surrounding UK membership of the EU has been fought with such enthusiasm. Madness... Or basic ethical conundrum! :laugh:

It is relatively 'simple' to see why Western cultures still hold the ideals of personal freedom etc... etc... (even if it often fails spectacularly). If not, then perhaps some more insightful research would be forthcoming. Not that I don't agree that not all the solutions are found in a single ideology.

Unbelievable as it may be I have met many people who have benefited from good will, generosity and the cooperation of others. Whether you define such phenomena as 'charity' or not does not detract from the fact it happens, and most of us have been stricken by that brush whether you realise/acknowledge it or not.

Regarding corruption in places like Africa, well if the game is rigged (through deliberate means or simple things like geography or ecology) it is unsurprisingly more difficult.

 

On further thought, and specifically regarding ideas put forward on human intelligence, I think 'automation' explains many of the phenomena that we see and experience. In a sense intelligence is almost irrelevant, or at least fundamentally unmeasurable. The phrase 'simple in concept, complex in application' springs to mind. Evolution writes it's own book, so to speak.

 

So... to join in and thus pitch in my own vexations about debate/discussion, I suppose it is evident right here in the 'automation' of, essentially the same, ideas and points being made through our own personal star-dust filled kaleidoscopes. Not to say it isn't 'worth while' of course, because it is done and so is part of that which is.

 

To return 'on topic' I would therefore say that the future of the EU has not happened yet, although through the study of 'automation' and, possibly narcissistically, history a number of possible futures can be estimated. Predictions of the future in the past have however shown, that while the reality does manifest itself in identifiable forms, nihilism is also prevalent.

 

As usual, only time will tell...

[Signette]

 

 

Not really true. What is created could be uncreated. It's all artificial. It may not be the smartest choice but it's possible. The extent to which you can influence it is a self fulfilling prophecy - the more power you gain from it, the more influence you can exert on it. Negative interest rates is a good example. A huge number of economists say either you can't or shouldn't do it, but it suited the purpose so they went ahead anyway.

Abstractly yes, but technically no. Those who mostly benefit from this system are people who controlling it. Usual citizen, as they call "little man" who might be punished by this system, or the opposite - isn't in direct control here.

 

 

Unless you formalise it and call it a union. Then it seems to work pretty well. It depends how you're defining resources but in reality there's an awful lot of sharing and co-operation that goes on. One of the main reasons for EU existence is to 'level the playing field' so that all members can act at the same or similar level of development. That's why the structural funds exist and why some countries are net contributors and others net benficiaries.

Again, it's a long dream that European countries will be on the "same field" ever. I won't believe that bigger contributes do not have any advantages over benificiaries, and they don't pull these strings. Some big interests usually come first, and there's power to be abused. Welfare of all is not in human nature, it isn't in history, anywhere...

 

 

Law is law and people abide by it or get in trouble. That applies wherever you are assuming you've got a functioning state. Consequences vary but that's largely down to the type of government and what they think is important. Custom is a social norm and unless you're in a particularly restrictive state it's just habit. You do it or you don't. Afternoon tea is a UK custom but the vast majority don't observe it so why should anyone be forced to? Forcing people to behvae in a certain way beyond the core principles of security and good order is a dangerous path to tread. You end up with drones and slaves.

Cutting rams' head in the middle of the street and afternoon tea are both customs, but it's obvious which one is more appropriate and where. I perfectly understand those enforcements may have dangerous consequences, but in the light of latest events reviewing these policies might be somewhat useful.

 

@sunshinenbrick

Thing is, as the events in Europe go, I fear "blindsided regime" is that what's coming, and "flexibility" or things like "free will" are to become nonexistent in essence, so certain restrictions to preserve these aforementioned values may be the right thing to do right now. Still, it's just one of many possibilities of course, things may go either way, but every human being has a gift of prediction based on certain facts or events, no matter if those are false or true.

 

Anyway, everyone here has a right to voice his point of view, agree, disagree and argue, isn't that usually what happens in debates?... So, I don't see any real reason to get all uptight about it.

[sunshinenbrick]

Anyway, everyone here has a right to voice his point of view, agree, disagree and argue, isn't that usually what happens in debates?... So, I don't see any real reason to get all uptight about it.

That is exactly what I myself was trying to say... I thought I detected a hint of critical sarcasm in what you were saying - 'exciting' and 'grounded', or 'drifting discussion' can be used in such a way. I guess technology does still have its limitations, and perhaps I was mistaken, and I do enjoy your points of view and contributions, very much so! :yes:

 

I also guess, that as these things we are discussing here are actually happening and developing as we speak, then open and speculative debate is simply inevitable whether any of us like it or not. This might also explain any sense of enthusiasm or attention to detail that may arise, however 'rational' a proposed 'solution' might appear.

 

Suppose the only walls we have are those of the room we are in...

[Unmod]

It's bound to drift when talking about states and their direction of travel, given they encompass virtually everything we do and think and it is actually important rather than the usual political talking shop.

 

In UK terms we're basicaally talking about the survival of the state as it reconfigures itself. Whether we like it or not we've got zero guarantees. If you're paying any kind of attention it gets under your skin.

[Signette]

 

Anyway, everyone here has a right to voice his point of view, agree, disagree and argue, isn't that usually what happens in debates?... So, I don't see any real reason to get all uptight about it.

That is exactly what I myself was trying to say... I thought I detected a hint of critical sarcasm in what you were saying - 'exciting' and 'grounded', or 'drifting discussion' can be used in such a way. I guess technology does still have its limitations, and perhaps I was mistaken, and I do enjoy your points of view and contributions, very much so! :yes:

 

I also guess, that as these things we are discussing here are actually happening and developing as we speak, then open and speculative debate is simply inevitable whether any of us like it or not. This might also explain any sense of enthusiasm or attention to detail that may arise, however 'rational' a proposed 'solution' might appear.

 

Suppose the only walls we have are those of the room we are in...

Thanks, appreciate it. Sorry if some of my posts seem sarcastic, they aren't intended that way. English is not my main language so it's hard to formulate thoughts correctly into text sometimes, plus my perception of posts may be somewhat incorrect, so I kinda apologize.

 

And yeah, it's rather hot topic these days, hard not to discuss, heh. One thing that makes this debate actually really interesting (for me anyway) is international public here, seen some quite unexpected opinions on the matters.

[sunshinenbrick]

 

 

Anyway, everyone here has a right to voice his point of view, agree, disagree and argue, isn't that usually what happens in debates?... So, I don't see any real reason to get all uptight about it.

That is exactly what I myself was trying to say... I thought I detected a hint of critical sarcasm in what you were saying - 'exciting' and 'grounded', or 'drifting discussion' can be used in such a way. I guess technology does still have its limitations, and perhaps I was mistaken, and I do enjoy your points of view and contributions, very much so! :yes:

 

I also guess, that as these things we are discussing here are actually happening and developing as we speak, then open and speculative debate is simply inevitable whether any of us like it or not. This might also explain any sense of enthusiasm or attention to detail that may arise, however 'rational' a proposed 'solution' might appear.

 

Suppose the only walls we have are those of the room we are in...

Thanks, appreciate it. Sorry if some of my posts seem sarcastic, they aren't intended that way. English is not my main language so it's hard to formulate thoughts correctly into text sometimes, plus my perception of posts may be somewhat incorrect, so I kinda apologize.

 

And yeah, it's rather hot topic these days, hard not to discuss, heh. One thing that makes this debate actually really interesting (for me anyway) is international public here, seen some quite unexpected opinions on the matters.

 

 

Your language and communication skills appear very good in my opinion. And even though English is my 'main language' I still struggle to be completely comprehensible sometimes (perhaps more often than I would like :laugh:). I think a lot of communication happens outside what we say and technology has always struggled with the nuances of our nature.

 

I think actually therein is where the Pandora's Box to much of our inner and inter complications lie. Artificial Intelligence™ and cybernetics/bionics will surely open the doors to a truly brave new world... but maybe a separate topic is needed.

[Adincath]

test