World Peace But at a Price

[Cool_Freaker 0]

Now, I have this interesting idea, that might lead to world peace, however, some people may consider such strategies as immoral. Read now the argument I typed up real fast: (Yes, I did do some research on the subject)----The mind was once thought of as merely the way the brain processes information and as one might say, the operating system of the body. However, with advancements in psychology, one can now bring the mind forth into a new form of both science and warfare, one that bends the minds of people to conform to your views. With proper stimuli a nation can engineer it?s people to agree with its views like a form of advance propaganda. The nation would then believe in its heart that their purpose is the only right one and all others should conform to their ideals. The nation can then use these people as more powerful soldiers in an army, driven not only by the commands of ranking officials, but also fervor in wanting to spread their ideal to foreign ?unenlightened? countries. A new science should be created to study methods to harvest the minds power for the greater good. A country with a common sense of duty would not only aid military efforts but also for the economy. United with a national aim, people would be engineered to not work for personal gain, but also work for the betterment of the nation and society around them. This would help lower the rate of unemployment by not outsourcing jobs and allowing a nation to rise as a whole. The main argument against such a strategy would be questioning the morality of a scheme such as this. However, the only people that would give rise to such arguments will also be hardwired to think like the masses. Hence they would not question the motives of the government. If any dissidents arise in the government, it may be time to consider a new form of government where the psychiatrists that perform the guidance of the people are also under government control. With this method, people throughout the nation would seem to be human robots without them knowing it, and hence they cannot do anything to stop that which has happened to them. Plato said in The Allegory of the Cave, ?You must contrive for your future rulers another and better life than that of a ruler?? If this is a necessary component of a civilization, all costs and methods must be put into place for this to happen. Without the publics support for any plans the nation has, the country would not satisfy this requirement, and would not progress in a efficient fashion. With the control of the minds of people, they would have little choice but to follow the decrees of the government, and if the government choices were indeed beneficial to the country, the future ruler would have a better life than the current one. If the decree proves to be detrimental to the government, there would not likely be another ruler and therefore not matter anyway in the long run. A similar approach to governing is shown in the work Brave New World, where children were taught to fear and love certain aspects in society so that they would not harm the governing people in any way. The society they lived in was indeed peaceful with only outsiders without treatment and a few mentally disturbed people in the land. When outside influences tried to enter the world, the happiness of everyone in the nation started deteriorating. This shows that with people all under control they are happy. Unhappiness comes from a change in society. With a large stimulus such as a heretic in the case of Brave New World coming in to disturb the peace of society, the land would then lose its state of contentment. In regards to slaves, Mr. Auld said in From the Narrative of a Slave, ?He would be unmanageable, and of no use to his master.? The concept of engineering people to be loyal to ones country is similar to this. Once the plan is in effect and people are hardwired to be loyal to their country, there will be no going back to the previous state. This would mean the end of the governing party after people find out this is how they have been treated. Hence, the government should keep this procedure a secret for only the most trusted officials to know. If anyone else finds out about this and is likely to spread the word, public dissent would rise uncontrollably and people would be of no use to the government. Unlike slavery, the people would not be sent unwillingly to do tasks set by the government. People would still have the freewill to act as they would and have whatever career they wish. The only difference is that with every action the populace makes, it is in favor of the government. Seditious acts would then be completely eliminated unless it was to happen unconsciously. If a seditious act does take place, it would very likely be accidental and easy to reverse. The only sure way for this plan to work with the minimal amount of flaws is under the condition that the world is unified. If each individual country has its people believing in their own different views, endless wars would ensue bringing destruction to all. The process of which are engineered to be loyal to one country cannot be in place in more than one country at first. The first country would then use the power gained from such an experiment to take control of other nations. With other nations that are under the originators control also loyal, global domination would become easier as time goes on. This may in the end save many more lives and allow people to live in peace without the fear of international warfare. Civil wars would also not occur, as the loyalties are focused onto one figure in the nation rather than a group of leaders. From what may seem as a cruel and terrible plan, peace throughout the world is possible. From what may seem as a cruel and terrible plan, peace throughout the world is possible.A leader should not fear that his attempt at modifying the minds of his subjects would arouse dissenters. They must simply tell the people that they are undergoing an experiment that would greatly improve the lives of its inhabitants. As Machiavelli says, ?Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are?. Like this, everyone would then think you are indeed helping the nation grow, and very few would have reason to believe the true purpose of taking over the minds of people. Those people would later be dismissed as heretics that are in everyday society anyway. The mind is still sufficiently complex that most people would not see what is coming to them until it is too late. In the current age the mind is no longer a mysterious object incomprehensible to the people of the world. Science and psychology has been advanced enough to uncover more about the mind and its power. Now the people must go back the original purpose as to why the first people began to study the mind. The hope that with knowledge the world can be a better place and harmony would at last shine through the quagmire. ----We are now living in an age where something like this is possible. For those of you who have read the novel, "Brave New World" you have an understanding of what I'm trying to convey. However, I do not go as far as to say that people themselves should be engineered into classes like it was brought up in the novel.Are you willing to give up a few rights to have freedom?Or is the current situation better? A few lives lost each day for what people hope would be temporary peace?

[truefusion 3]

The theory you state says we would have free will, but what if we chose to be a government official? Would we be removed from these mind-control machines? And how can it be free will, if the government gets the last word? Also, you think the people that dont have these mind-control machines on would act righteously? Afterall, they're the ones that want these mind-control machines on us.

[jlhaslip 4]

My concern about this approach you suggest is that it has already been tried and defeated before. I refer to the Nazi Reich and the Soviet Union. Another issue is expressed in this Latin phrase: "?Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?". I'll let you research it by yourself.

[trace-uk 0]

no we don't live in a world where we'rethat technologically advanced yet. do a degree in psychology or emdicine and you'll see how not advanced we really are. I did.

[Cool_Freaker 0]

My concern about this approach you suggest is that it has already been tried and defeated before. I refer to the Nazi Reich and the Soviet Union. Another issue is expressed in this Latin phrase: "żQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?". I'll let you research it by yourself.

You just invoked Godwins Law...

no we don't live in a world where we'rethat technologically advanced yet. do a degree in psychology or emdicine and you'll see how not advanced we really are. I did.

By technology I refer to Sociophysics and Psycology rather than machines.