IRC-Galleria

Oli pakko vähän keskittyy tohon ja muutella tota ku sain käännöstöitä tekevän enon korjaamaan sen, joka btw osaa enkkuu ku äidinkileltään :)

"If the world should be made for one randomly selected human being and that individual would eventually, e.g. during the 21st century, obtain a power to change history and future or this certain moment, yet being unable to create anything "new" which itself is yet to be found. Would he obliterate famine and the huge inequality between welfare states and developing countries?

With the current knowledge of the climate change and the estimated drainage of natural resources such as oil and water, it would be absurd to elevate less developed countries (LDC) to the same level as the Occident. Therefore another option would be lowering welfare states much closer to LDC, but majority of the people would not even consider living in such conditions since they do know, or at least have some kind of conception of the way of living in the poorest countries. Every human being fundamentally thinks of themselves and therefore the "chosen one" would not lower his standard of living. (Note; the text is based on the default that the chosen would be living in a welfare state.)

If the power had no other limits aside from the incapability of creating unknown, the person could try different ways of changing the present and future by rewriting the history of a mankind. But the odds would be against it, since there would always be someone to invent the same things which have been come up so far. The only variable would be the amount of the people living in poverty and it could variate either way. Hence there would be inequality in the standard of living until the end of time, unless the chosen one simply destroyed all the LDC, in which case the chosen would be insane and inhuman, at which point he probably wouldn't even try to make the world a better place, or at least not by any method which mentally healthy people would describe it to be positive.

In the end, the situation hasn't improved much, although we have this God-like person trying to make things better. Leaving out all the previous alternatives, there still remains at least one decent solution. The chosen could be affecting to decisions made by those who have a real authority, chosen by the people in each country. The chosen could also manipulate the results of elections based on the intuition; who would be the one to change the direction of the future of a mankind and who might be the one to really assimilate the situation, and most importantly, to be able to realise all the consequenses if nothing is done.

If the selection made by an intuition happened to be a flop, there would still be one shot and we don't need that fairytale character for this one. The leaders and the ones attending, for example, G8 and other summit meetings as advisors and deciding members can be persuaded to make positive decisions concerning our and the following generations' future. For the time being it seems that the G8 is not even trying to reach the promised support for developing countries. G8 had already promised 18 milliard dollars for a suppression of AIDS in Africa, but practically the aid has stayed put to 6 milliard dollars. It's not that the G8 hasn't done anything. A few years ago they actually abated significantly the debts of some developing countries in order to give them a chance to build up their economy. That probably wouldn't have happened without the enormous Live8 concerts organised around the world in order to appeal to G8 countries.

Approx everyone knows the fact that everything depends on the Group of Eight and it is also commonly known that the richest countries also engenders the biggest amounts of greenhouse gases. We can only wonder why the most of the eight leading industrial nations, no matter what, does not recognise the fact that the earth's natural resources is not going to last forever. A great attention has been aimed at the U.S., arguably thanks to their president who fools away inexplicable amounts of America's money just to play a world police, basically with no rights to do that, e.g. the war in Iraq has been categorised illegal, because it did not fill the United Nation's criteria for a righteous war. Sure, I must admit, it is very clever to use a third of the national product and straight away complain how the United States' economy would suffer if their emissions were reduced. American citizens also use fairly bigger amouts of water compared to the people in other countries.

Anyway, the point of the whole writing was to make a statement that the only way the changes can be achieved is through the decision-makers, the world's most famous group of ding-heads. And because they seem to be either greedy or just bunch of idiots, they must be forced to do something instead of just making empty promises. Also for some reason, or actually the reason is quite apprehensible, neither the people get anything started because the most tell themselves that they are just mere individuals and thus not able to make any difference in such a big case as a global threat is. But if all the individuals join forces, the eight leading industrial nations must eventually do something. There comes the problem; a great deal of individuals ought to think the success is not up to one person and as a result no one does nothing. Some might also think that "it's not like it's my concern since nothing's gonna happen while I'm alive", but isn't that a bit selfish, as far as I know, our children or grandchildren have to face the problems and if this generation just ignores everything and enjoys a simple life, it is going to be really tough for the next generations. So, are the most of human beings really that selfiish to be able to ignore their offspring's future?

And yes, GJ for the leaders of the greatest industrial nations, why the hell resources should be used to make weapons and to develope better and better warcrafts e.g. "The world's biggest, powerfullest and almost invisible super submarine", which is a property of the U.S. of course. What's the point of this still ongoing arms race? Perhaps the United States of the America did freeze to the time of the Cold War. At least their leader is obviously deep frozen. I don't really think that possessing a loads of guns (and of course submarine and tank), would be any help to me if we totally destroyed the ozone layer, run out of water, got the malaria and venomous spiders and snakes here. Excluding a flamethrower which might actually become quite handy when killing the insects and such. Oh, and the skin cancer might also come quite common after the ozone is gone.

Perhaps the armsrace is actually a preparing for the future's shortage of natural resources, so that if your country runs out of water, just send a nuclear bomb somewhere and tell the country next to that place that they all will face the same destiny if they won't give away their water? If that's the case it would be seriously recommended to send the ones behind that kind of plan in a mental hospital. And after that the Gulf Stream will eventually stop, naturally after half of the dry ground has turned to a bottom of an ocean. Then we will come across a new ice age and everything went as planned?"