1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. 2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity. 3. Unite humanity with a living new language. 4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason. 5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. 9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite. 10. Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
3 and 6 are the only ones I disagree with. Or maybe it's just 3, since what do you do if you live in harmony with nature, while a China or USA becomes what they are today?
Otherwise, the rest seem practical, if not actually necessary to avoid what it's already too late to prevent - species collapse. That's known as the 'bust' in the boom/bust cycle in mammal populations. In the GG scheme, technology advances wouldn't have to be evil, unlike our current path.
Anyway, the main problem with this list is it presupposes a level of intelligence and self-control that's far beyond our species.
[ - ] Sector2 [op] 1 point 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 17:57:15 ago (+1/-0)
I don't believe in the new jewish version of English, so for me words like 'diversity' and 'gay' still have their original legitimate meanings.
You could rightly assume there'd be a lot of disagreement over who gets to pick who stays alive. I don't know how that one could work without major problems, but IQ should definitely be one of the factors. Genetic diseases should be a no-go too, along with half-breeds.
Then everyone returns to their own territories. China and India would take the biggest hits because of their population density, which would be another factor.
The biggest challenge would be in consensus and enforcement, since we're pretty much just mammals who falsely believe our species is functionally intelligent. If that were true, we wouldn't have made such a shitshow of our only habitat.
A lower population could be a good thing, but who gets to pick who gets to stay alive?
White Nationalists could do it. Let's say there's 8billion people on Earth, and Whites make up ~7% of that. This gives us about 560million people. Not too far off from what that list says.
I disagree with all of them, as they're honeyed words hiding ulterior motives.
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. What balance? Everything modern civilization interacts with in nature causes an imbalance, whether intentional or not. To live in perpetual balance with nature would require separation and containment away from nature. Our food production causes the largest imbalances for nature, which is likely the reason a population cap is demanded.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity. If guide isn't demand, then it's incentivise. And I'd bet there'd be a whole lot more sticks than carrots to stay under the population cap. The rejection of racial pride will be considered fitness of mind.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language. Everyone will know the rules because there will be nothing lost in translation.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason. Anyone participating in things that may cause subversive thought and action will not pass the fitness test.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. These together define what could be stated in a single bullet point. There will be one rule of law for all. Kind of hard to sugarcoat that, so it's broken apart to make it palatable.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite. 10. Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature. I think the author laid out all his tenets, but wanted 10 in total. So, he reworded what was already stated for the last two. 9 is stating 4 from the opposite direction. To pass the fitness test, you must embrace only that which is given to you.
He probably wanted 10 to replace the 10 from God. These people are secular humanists, who are naturalists that also believe in transcendence through human reason.
The USA's total square mileage is just a bit shy of 3.8 million square miles. If you just look at land area, the United States comprised just over 6% of the total world land area. (North America = 16.5% of the Earth's land area.)
So, 30 million in the US, and 82.5 million in all of North America from Canada to Panama. That still seems excessive at 8 to 10 people per square mile.
What balance? Everything modern civilization interacts with in nature causes an imbalance
Exactly. Modern civ in its current corrupt configuration would have to go. Same with cities, industrial food production, and all the trappings. Almost everyone would have an acre of so of garden space behind their house to grow their produce. Electricity could still be a thing if not too damaging. Note the Amish produce their own from small generators in streams on their land.
But the whole thing is just an ideal that would be impossible for humans to accept. We've simply been destined to destroy ourselves since the beginning.
I disagree with all of them, as they're honeyed words hiding ulterior motives.
What ulterior motives? If it were possible, do you think our species should be saved? It's obviously way too late, but if we had chosen to not self-destruct sometime in the past, would that have been better than our current path?
I agree that the ideal you describe would be impossible and I would argue the guidestones author would have also agreed. He used words of a utopian ideal that will never happen to sell his ulterior motive. Namely, how to control the expanding population of apex predators that he and his progeny and friends must compete with for resources.
In Nature apex predators are not comprised of the many, but the few who live somewhat comfortable lives through violence. Their numbers in Nature are limited by available resources. They do not share resources with their competitors. Humans chose to self-destruct when they chose to share resources with their competitors instead of keeping them for their own improvement. You can't save humanity by giving aid to the inefficient so they can replicate and spread (2. Guide reproduction wisely...).
I could agree with the guidelines if I set the rules. But, I'm opposed to what's deemed as acceptable by our current rulers in regards to truth, beauty, love, and good and bad.
I don't view the guidestones as instructions for saving humanity, but the requisites for acquiring dominance over humanity.
3 and 6 are the only ones I disagree with as well.
I don't really understand how Voat has always had such a hate boner for the guidestones. Genetic diversity is important within all species individually, and as an ecosystem. I always read it as not inbreeding.
As for #3, we tried Esperanto already. It was silly.
As for #6, I only disagree with the world court. Let countries figure their own shit out.
Whites stand at around 550-600 million world-wide. If we got rid of all the muds, niggers, chinks, and kikes, we would be fairly close to that 500mil number.
[ + ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior
[ - ] AngryWhiteKeyboardWarrior 4 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 14:46:08 ago (+4/-0)
I agree with 5 and 7 as written.
A lower population could be a good thing, but who gets to pick who gets to stay alive? Too much can go wrong with that one to agree with it.
Same with number 2. Who gets to pick?
Number 9 sounds good except for the hippy shit about harmony with the infinite.
Number 10 could also be good depending.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 [op] 1 point 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 17:57:15 ago (+1/-0)
You could rightly assume there'd be a lot of disagreement over who gets to pick who stays alive. I don't know how that one could work without major problems, but IQ should definitely be one of the factors. Genetic diseases should be a no-go too, along with half-breeds.
Then everyone returns to their own territories. China and India would take the biggest hits because of their population density, which would be another factor.
The biggest challenge would be in consensus and enforcement, since we're pretty much just mammals who falsely believe our species is functionally intelligent. If that were true, we wouldn't have made such a shitshow of our only habitat.
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 1 point 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 18:59:43 ago (+1/-0)
White Nationalists could do it. Let's say there's 8billion people on Earth, and Whites make up ~7% of that. This gives us about 560million people. Not too far off from what that list says.
[ + ] WillisJaxson
[ - ] WillisJaxson 2 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 16:35:56 ago (+3/-1)
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
What balance? Everything modern civilization interacts with in nature causes an imbalance, whether intentional or not. To live in perpetual balance with nature would require separation and containment away from nature. Our food production causes the largest imbalances for nature, which is likely the reason a population cap is demanded.
2. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity.
If guide isn't demand, then it's incentivise. And I'd bet there'd be a whole lot more sticks than carrots to stay under the population cap. The rejection of racial pride will be considered fitness of mind.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
Everyone will know the rules because there will be nothing lost in translation.
4. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason.
Anyone participating in things that may cause subversive thought and action will not pass the fitness test.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
These together define what could be stated in a single bullet point. There will be one rule of law for all. Kind of hard to sugarcoat that, so it's broken apart to make it palatable.
9. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite.
10. Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature.
I think the author laid out all his tenets, but wanted 10 in total. So, he reworded what was already stated for the last two. 9 is stating 4 from the opposite direction. To pass the fitness test, you must embrace only that which is given to you.
[ + ] TheGreatWar
[ - ] TheGreatWar 1 point 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 18:24:42 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 [op] 0 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 18:53:45 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 [op] 0 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 18:48:12 ago (+0/-0)
So, 30 million in the US, and 82.5 million in all of North America from Canada to Panama. That still seems excessive at 8 to 10 people per square mile.
Exactly. Modern civ in its current corrupt configuration would have to go. Same with cities, industrial food production, and all the trappings. Almost everyone would have an acre of so of garden space behind their house to grow their produce. Electricity could still be a thing if not too damaging. Note the Amish produce their own from small generators in streams on their land.
But the whole thing is just an ideal that would be impossible for humans to accept. We've simply been destined to destroy ourselves since the beginning.
What ulterior motives? If it were possible, do you think our species should be saved? It's obviously way too late, but if we had chosen to not self-destruct sometime in the past, would that have been better than our current path?
[ + ] WillisJaxson
[ - ] WillisJaxson 1 point 4 monthsDec 16, 2023 01:56:02 ago (+1/-0)
In Nature apex predators are not comprised of the many, but the few who live somewhat comfortable lives through violence. Their numbers in Nature are limited by available resources. They do not share resources with their competitors. Humans chose to self-destruct when they chose to share resources with their competitors instead of keeping them for their own improvement. You can't save humanity by giving aid to the inefficient so they can replicate and spread (2. Guide reproduction wisely...).
I could agree with the guidelines if I set the rules. But, I'm opposed to what's deemed as acceptable by our current rulers in regards to truth, beauty, love, and good and bad.
I don't view the guidestones as instructions for saving humanity, but the requisites for acquiring dominance over humanity.
[ + ] RabbiKinderschtupper
[ - ] RabbiKinderschtupper 2 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 15:03:19 ago (+2/-0)
I don't really understand how Voat has always had such a hate boner for the guidestones. Genetic diversity is important within all species individually, and as an ecosystem. I always read it as not inbreeding.
As for #3, we tried Esperanto already. It was silly.
As for #6, I only disagree with the world court. Let countries figure their own shit out.
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 2 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 15:05:05 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] PotatoWhisperer2
[ - ] PotatoWhisperer2 0 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 19:01:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 [op] 0 points 4 monthsDec 15, 2023 18:51:51 ago (+0/-0)
It's a symptom of our species. It's why everything is so fucked, and why the descent is accelerating. Buy now, pay later. Bankruptcy approaches.