Will there ever be a world of peace in where we can call it a Global Golden Age?



The equality of all people is usually thought of as a modern ideal. Although sustained efforts to achieve it have only been made from the last 200 years or so, it crops up in every age.

When did it start?

It was only possible in a state of inequality; but we know of no time before that. So a doctrine of equality may have been preached for many thousands of years before it was first recorded in a famous Egyptian text - inscribed on wooden coffins from about 2000 BC - from the mouth of Amun-Re. The god says he created "every man like his fellow" and sent the winds "that every man might breathe like his fellow" and floods "that the poor man might have rights in them like the rich," but evil- doing had produced inequalities that were a purely human responsibility.

This raises a problem: if inequality prevailed everywhere, were did the idea of equality come from?

Some thinkers have argued that it was a sort of collective memory from an early phase of the history of society, when inequalities were much slighter than in recorded times. The great historian of China, Joseph Needham, argued that criticism of landlords, common in Chinese songs of the 7th century BC, was inspired by memories of "a stage of early society before... Bronze Age proto-feudalism and the institution of private property." "You do no sow, you do not reap," as one song reproaches the landlords, " so where do you get the produce of those 300 farms?" The book known as Chuang Tzu praised the ancient common life of virtue and natural liberty, when all men and all creatures were one. "This was the state of pure simplicity," corrupted by sages, officials, and artists.

Since no such age existed in reality, it cannot have been remembered. But it can have been imagined. Most cultures have a mytho of a "golden age," those "good old days" that can be invoked to denounce the vies of the present. "The times that came after the gods," as ancient Egyptian proverbial wisdom called them, when "books of wisdom were their pyramids" is there anyone here like [them]?"

Similarly, in Mesopotamia in the second millennium BC, Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, recalled a time when there were no canals, no overseers, no liars, no sickness, and no old age.

Because the idea of equality originated in myth it has generally been treated as a myth: extolled by many, believed by few. Occasionally it has been taken seriously and the results have in almost all cases been violent rebellions of the underprivileged against the prevailing order (whatever that may be, for no lasting order has ever embodied equality).

Successful rebellions are revolutions: but although equality has been a common aim of revolutions, especially in modern times, it has never endured asa revolutionary achievement.


Here are some books that you can order online if you like:

R. Dworkin's "A Matter of Principle" (1985) treats equality from the perspective of jurisprudence, while R. Nozick's "Anarchy, State and Utopia" (1974) adopts an approach from political philosophy.

The Book of Chuang Tzu (c. 1300 BC) consists of the teachings and stories by Master Chuang, which helped developed Taoism. I am still studying this work and trying to gather more about it online. If you have links then let me know.

I end with this quote from the United Nations that is supposed to symbolize a world of unified peace.

"All men are born free and equal in dignity and rights." - UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Okay I guess everyone is on the same page here.

yes, it's coming...

In which direction so I can be prepared

Awww..i wish i knew, guess we need to just be aware at all times, keep looking, keep learning, keep meditating on it, keep our hearts and minds open.

Thank you for the good advice. I shall do this.

eh...Thank you!!

I don't think it matters so much where it comes from or where it is going. It is bred new in the hearts of every young being and won't be too much different than today, besides possible upset, which decreases with maturity and age anyways. It's just currently suppressed. But heh, maybe that is just the product of a poor imagination.

It's not even a matter of when.

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." - Aristotle


Egalitarianism means the belief in the equality of all men. If the word “equality” is to be taken in any serious or rational sense, the crusade for this belief is dated by about a century or more: the United States of America has made it an anachronism—by establishing a system based on the principle of individual rights. “Equality,” in a human context, is a political term: it means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every man possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be infringed or abrogated by man-made institutions, such as titles of nobility or the division of men into castes established by law, with special privileges granted to some and denied to others. The rise of capitalism swept away all castes, including the institutions of aristocracy and of slavery or serfdom.

But this is not the meaning that the altruists ascribe to the word “equality.”

They turn the word into an anti-concept: they use it to mean, not political, but metaphysical equality—the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. It is not man-made institutions, but nature, i.e., reality, that they propose to fight—by means of man-made institutions.

Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts. Since the Law of Identity is impervious to human manipulation, it is the Law of Causality that they struggle to abrogate. Since personal attributes or virtues cannot be “redistributed,” they seek to deprive men of their consequences—of the rewards, the benefits, the achievements created by personal attributes and virtues. It is not equality before the law that they seek, but inequality: the establishment of an inverted social pyramid, with a new aristocracy on top—the aristocracy of non-value.

If there were such a thing as a passion for equality (not equality de jure, but de facto), it would be obvious to its exponents that there are only two ways to achieve it: either by raising all men to the mountaintop—or by razing the mountains. The first method is impossible because it is the faculty of volition that determines a man’s stature and actions; but the nearest approach to it was demonstrated by the United States and capitalism, which protected the freedom, the rewards and the incentives for every individual’s achievement, each to the extent of his ability and ambition, thus raising the intellectual, moral and economic state of the whole society. The second method is impossible because, if mankind were leveled down to the common denominator of its least competent members, it would not be able to survive (and its best would not choose to survive on such terms). Yet it is the second method that the altruist egalitarians are pursuing. The greater the evidence of their policy’s consequences, i.e., the greater the spread of misery, of injustice, of vicious inequality throughout the world, the more frantic their pursuit—which is one demonstration of the fact that there is no such thing as a benevolent passion for equality and that the claim to it is only a rationalization to cover a passionate hatred of the good for being the good.

“The Age of Envy,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 144


The new “theory of justice” [of John Rawls] demands that men counteract the “injustice” of nature by instituting the most obscenely unthinkable injustice among men: deprive “those favored by nature” (i.e., the talented, the intelligent, the creative) of the right to the rewards they produce (i.e., the right to life)—and grant to the incompetent, the stupid, the slothful a right to the effortless enjoyment of the rewards they could not produce, could not imagine, and would not know what to do with.

Philosophy: Who Needs It

“An Untitled Letter,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 110


To understand the meaning and motives of egalitarianism, project it into the field of medicine. Suppose a doctor is called to help a man with a broken leg and, instead of setting it, proceeds to break the legs of ten other men, explaining that this would make the patient feel better; when all these men become crippled for life, the doctor advocates the passage of a law compelling everyone to walk on crutches—in order to make the cripples feel better and equalize the “unfairness” of nature.

If this is unspeakable, how does it acquire an aura of morality—or even the benefit of a moral doubt—when practiced in regard to man’s mind?


“The Age of Envy,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 144

It is not justice or equal treatment that you grant to men when you abstain equally from praising men’s virtues and from condemning men’s vices. When your impartial attitude declares, in effect, that neither the good nor the evil may expect anything from you—whom do you betray and whom do you encourage?



“How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 71


http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/egalitarianism.html

Still Game?

Make the best with what YOU have!

Time is cyclical; the "good old days" of the Golden Age will come again.

Man is really just a monkey after all, and, well, "monkey see monkey do" as they say, and this is the problem Man has faced since time immemorial.

Back in the Times we don't remember, there once was equality and brotherhood, but it was only the equality and brotherhood of the tribe, and tribes were really only extended families of about a hundred or so. "Outsiders" were not to be trusted and tribal wars were, as to be expected rampant in the ancient days. The altruism and love for the tribal brother didn't extend to other tribes.

The natural drive for peace and security caused tribes to form alliances so that their tribe could be bigger than any possible invader who might want their resources. The inevitable result of this was an ever-increasing population density and the need for organization. (It was the beginning of farming as preferable to gathering, since the amount that could be gathered was inversely proportional to the population density) Farming, with its increase in food production per unit area, became a necessity for the new city-states.

This is where everything first went wrong, because when an empathy-devoid psychopath was born in the good old days, he was soon apparent to his brothers in the small tribe, and if he tried to serve himself at someone else's expense, he probably found himself beaten and banished from the tribe (psychopathy was probably very rare, as the trait would not have selected well, evolutionarily speaking...My guess is that psychopaths were probably less than one percent of the population, maybe even a tenth of that.)

The need for organization and efficiency meant more specialization and while some remained farmers, there also had to be accountants, grain handlers, and eventually hookers, pimps & crack-houses to make the society a functional one.

Naturally, to make things more efficient, a hierarchical, or "stratified" society became necessary, and that meant God-kings of the city-states, which (as you might expect) still had wars with other city-states, much like the tribes did, only the stakes were a bit higher and the number of people killed in the wars probably went up about 400-fold. It seems the self-culling of the excess population started about 7 thousand years ago, when the population was only about 50 million on the whole planet. (one gets the impression that for any two people, the planet isn't big enough for both of them)

Thus began the power pyramid of the "New World Order" we hear so much about these days. (Kinda funny when you think about it; that "order" is pretty old.) The "Battle between good and evil" turns out to be the age old struggle between a natural order of things for which we evolved and the natural consequence of our evolution, the imposition of an artificial structure (of organization).

We could look at it as the difference between a beautiful chaotic (fractal) mountain and the Khufu Pyramid...which really looks better? Better not ask one of those neo-monkeys called "Man" his opinion, because he's probably quite proud of his monkey-see-mountain-monkey-make-own-mountain pyramid.

Most people think that tearing down the monkey-like imitations of nature entails the dismantling of all the progress we've made over the centuries, but a change in the structure of society shouldn't have to entail that at all. All we need is the intelligence to see that the artificiality of the structure of society has allowed psychopathy to prevail and flourish at the expense of empathy, remove the psychopaths (now about 3% of the population and climbing as usual) from the power they murdered & clawed their way to attaining (thanks to the anonymity that began with the city-state)

Thanks to the internet, we now stand on the verge of creating a global "village" of interconnected communities of communities of communities that will end the need for states as they are now defined. The naturally chaotic global village will be self organizing and egalitarian/altruistic by its very nature. Once formed there will be no more wars, stratified societies, or power pyramids, as nobody will be "in charge"...in fact EVERYONE will be in charge as humanity inherits the earth and starts looking after it.

One might think of something like that as a new (and permanent) "Golden Age."

sounds pretty good!
Just like those Giant Sponges I used to see diving!
Each little Cell specialized for a specific Task within the Sponge!
Global Sponge doesn't sound to shabby at all!
































as if that Crap hadn't been tried before!

It has...and it was always the same old story, the lawyers and moneylenders didn't want the rest of the population raining on their robbery parade.

NOT THIS TIME!!...I think after ten thousand ywars of tyranny & slavery we've wised up just a bit. Time now to replace the rule of the tyrant with the rule of law.

OMG,I can see it now!
Little Bands of bovine-looking Humanoids foraging across the Prairie,feeding on Insects,and gathering Seeds!
Actually quite idyllic in sort of a primitive Neanderthal way!
Ultimate Bliss!

I see you have no concept of virtual "tribes" of friend/family groups forming nodes on an egalitarian, interconnected F2F network. Everybody doesn't have to return to the stone age if they don't wanna, and cities of millions can be broken into small interconnected networks of "tribes" just as easily as the whole planet can.

So called government "leaders" become followers (administrators) of the will of the people, who will hold the purse strings and tell the admins how their money is to be spent...on an individual basis, by allocating their preferences in a budget proposed by the administrators, which again, can be modified by the people.

I dare say, most people would opt to spend money on things like infrastructure and aid to those in need, while the MIC would probably starve to death for lack of money for bombs & crap like that. Needless to say, there would be no room for fraudulent monetary systems and/or usurious banks or poisonous corporations like Monsanto, Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, Halliburton, et al in a network like that, so, far from being a stone-age hell, I think you'd find it really would come pretty close to some imagined "utopia", what with the, high productivity/prosperity, world peace & brotherhood & all.