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.
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.
WillisJaxson 1 points 4 months ago
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.