Are you a Pan-humanist?

[bloodmoth13]

I think segregation is more healthy for humanity as a whole, expecting a 1 size fits all system wont work for everyone.

Countries and borders are a good things, having different societies is inevitable, there is no real way to make all people integrate in some idealistic pan humanist society.

In fact i would HATE a pan humanist society as to me it sounds like a unipolar dictatorial empire with forced participation, which assumes a totalitarian planet, as by definition if groups of people dont participate then its not truly a 'pan humanistic' society but more similar to what we have now with different political climates with different borders, and if thats good enough, then we have that already but just in the form of countries instead of the whole planet.


In conclusion i think that multiple states with their own cultures and identity is the best direction for humanity.

[Dragoncurry]

Sure religion will always exist, but most in the scientific community don't let their religion impede their science. While others let their religion dictate their entire lives.

I doubt there will be many religious scholars and deeply religious theists getting a ride off the planet. Almost everyone who will leave for centuries will have some actual utility purpose.

Missionaries are PART of religion. The people who are deeply religious will be on the first, if not second shuttle off the planet. hahahaha. BTW Just because your scientist works on stem cells even though its against his religion doesn't mean he doesn't believe in treating women poorly, or something. He could still be dictated by his religion even if it doesn't impede "science".

Trust me most Muslims I know who are Doctors and Engineers aren't being stopped by religion but my uncle doesn't treat my aunt very well.

[bloodmoth13]

Why can't we all just be human? Why does there have to be a special label for it.

We already are all human?

Pan humanism doesnt actually change anything along those lines because we are all human whether or not its labeled, what it is really asking for is for everyone to agree on everything, which to me sounds alot like a planet wide lobotomy to remove all free will and opinions

Never gonna happen

[Uoyredrum]

It's an eventuality so yes. Well, that or the human race collapsing due to ignoring environmental destruction mixed with fighting over resources and not expanding into space fast enough. But if humanity is going to survive into the distant future, it'll have to happen at some point. I wouldn't expect it for at least another thousand years though and a shitload of people are probably going to die to achieve it.

[The One Percent]

The only way we are going to survive a mass extinction event or go take over another planet is with full 100% complete cooperation.

[drebz]

Humans think in tribes ... always have and always will.

Panhumanism depends on tribalism--from the sage directly:

In our earliest history, so far as we can tell, individuals held to an allegiance toward their immediate tribal group, which may have numbered no more than ten or twenty individuals, all of whom were related by consanguinity. As time went on, the need for cooperative behaviour--in the hunting of large animals or large herds, in agriculture, and in the development of cities--forced human beings into larger and larger groups. The group that was identified with, the tribal unit, enlarged at each stage of evolution. Today, a particular instant in the 4.5-billion-year history of Earth and in the several-million-year history of mankind, most human beings owe their primary allegiance to the nation-state (although some of the most dangerous political problems still arise from tribal conflicts involving smaller population units). Many visionary leaders have imagined a time when the allegiance of an individual human being is not to his particular nation-state, religion, race, or economic group, but to mankind as a whole; when the benefit to a human being of another sex, race, religion, or political persuasion ten thousand miles away is as precious to us as to our neighbour or our brother. The trend is in this direction, but it is aganozingly slow. There is a serious question whether such a global self-identification of mankind can be achieved before we destroy ourselves with the technological forces our intelligence has unleashed.

[I Push Buttons]

Missionaries are PART of religion. The people who are deeply religious will be on the first, if not second shuttle off the planet. hahahaha. BTW Just because your scientist works on stem cells even though its against his religion doesn't mean he doesn't believe in treating women poorly, or something. He could still be dictated by his religion even if it doesn't impede "science".

Trust me most Muslims I know who are Doctors and Engineers aren't being stopped by religion but my uncle doesn't treat my aunt very well.

Who is paying for it?

For the first several centuries of humans leaving this planet it will cost TRILLIONS of dollars (collectively). A government, a corporation, etc., investing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to set up a small habitat/colony/what have you is not going to send a fucking missionary. Literally everyone sent on such a mission will sever a purpose on the mission, perform some essential task... They aren't going to send people for the hell of it for a long ass time.

To argue otherwise is fucking stupid.

[hrugner]

This is a weird question as we're already there at some level. While we don't have one unified philosophy, our relative tolerance of other philosophies is at least one of our shared philosophies. Also, while we don't spread all resources around evenly, we do have many combined resources that are cared for by the whole population to perhaps too slight a degree. Our inborn panhumanistic nature should probably be recognized and cultivated when needed, but making an effort to unify beyond what is necessary seems to go beyond panhumanism to ethnocide.

[Laerrus]

Nope. I am just your average Half-White/Half-Asian American guy trying to make a living to feed my kids.

Ain't nobody got time for that pan stuff.

[I Push Buttons]

Technically, the first explorers were funded by the church.

But not all religions are missionary faiths. Buddhism for instance has a full community of people that are transhumanist, support AI getting human rights if it is actually conscious, etc... Not all religions are theistic, but I think you mentioned that.

Yeah I am not saying religious people won't be sent... I am saying we aren't going to send theologians, fanatics, etc. Those who go, if religious, will be scientists, engineers, etc., first.

[omfgreally]

The only way to get to a point for which something like that to happen is to destroy all religion, government and money.
A plato's republic of sorts. The only way that you can force humans to let go of what they so mindlessly hold dear is to make them have children and take their children and kill or lock away the parents. If you can not handle that then you are just pissing in the wind.

[Dragoncurry]

Who is paying for it?

For the first several centuries of humans leaving this planet it will cost TRILLIONS of dollars (collectively). A government, a corporation, etc., investing tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to set up a small habitat/colony/what have you is not going to send a fucking missionary. Literally everyone sent on such a mission will sever a purpose on the mission, perform some essential task... They aren't going to send people for the hell of it for a long ass time.

To argue otherwise is fucking stupid.

Bro, who the fuck cares about a small colony setting up. When you have a sizable population, they will send over a missionary. Why would you convert 4 people lol. By first shuttle, I mean one of the first civilian shuttles or colonization shuttles with a large group of people.

[bloodmoth13]

Actually it's telling you that if you want to be treated as an individual, treat others as individuals as well. i.e, the golden rule "do onto others as you would have them do unto you". Since pretty much every religion, and society has that as some form of guiding ethic in the culture, you would think more people would actually acknowledge it.

If you want to be treated as an individual what right do you have to tell others how they should act? So long as they are not hurting you, it really should not matter.

Moral obligation?
also thats not what 'the golden rule' implies, unless you REALLY hate authority or being pulled up on bullshit and would hate for someone else to do that to you/

I dont think pan-humanism is just letting everyone do what they want, that sounds more like anarchy, i think it has more to do with uniting everyone under a single ideology, either option being a lofty goal wrought with holes

[Shibito]

We wont ever work together unless we get a common threat like aliens.

[Queen of Hamsters]

I don't think humanity could ever unite and identify as one entity where everyone's equal and shit. No, not even in the event of an attack from some alien race...

[omfgreally]

We wont ever work together unless we get a common threat like aliens.

Ragan said the same thing. But knowing humans, They are always out for themselves and who is to say aliens are a threat. I have found that humans are always more of a threat to each other, themselves, to the planet and every thing living on it.

[Aoyi]

I would like to think this would one day be possible. Due to our nature though, we wouldn't be able to achieve this without discovering another sentient race in the universe. Tribalism runs too deep in our nature that without a new us vs them mindset, we couldn't achieve it. Its why we cheer for sports teams or feel pride for our country. There has to be a them to compare ourselves to or it won't happen.

[omfgreally]

I would like to think this would one day be possible. Due to our nature though, we wouldn't be able to achieve this without discovering another sentient race in the universe. Tribalism runs too deep in our nature that without a new us vs them mindset, we couldn't achieve it. Its why we cheer for sports teams or feel pride for our country. There has to be a them to compare ourselves to or it won't happen.

I do not have a sports team as I care not for such pitiful things, nor do I have pride for my country but shame as for what it has become, what it has done and who it is ruled by.

It doesn't not take something outside to get rid of Tribalism. It takes INSIDE to do away with it.

[nonameelf]

I think that culture is important and I would be sad to see different cultures disappear. Yes, we're all humans, but there are still differences. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place.

[bloodmoth13]

I did mention harm as it applies to the golden rule. Moral obligation is interesting, because not everyone has the same morals. But "harm" is usually understood by most healthy non-psychotic adults.

It is not about letting everyone do what they want to do, it is letting people be people so long as they are not hurting you or other people. When you see the commonality of people being "human", on one planet, wanting to be happy, etc... that should create the realization that working together to solve a common problem is better than working against people while also trying to solve a common problem. You do not need authority figures, religious figures, etc to teach you that. All you need is a healthy brain, and observation.

I think its idealistic though, for isntance many countries already work together for common goals, its just that sometimes those common goals are not shared by other countries, so this will never come to fruition unless every single person agreed on the same goals, which means that free will needs to be challenged.

As for morality, its not relative, only perceptions of it are, though morality can be something that is difficult to define.