Some time ago, Deepak Chopra appeared as a featured guest on the

[AdVen]

Some time ago, Deepak Chopra appeared as a featured guest on the virtual seminar, The Evolutionary Worldview. Speaking with EnlightenNext founder Andrew Cohen about what it takes to be a true evolutionary leader, Chopra challenged the thousands of listeners from around the world to answer four questions about their visions for the future:

1. What kind of world do you want to live in and what kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to live in?

2. What is your role in bringing this about?

3. Regarding the organizations that you’re part of, what kind of team do you want to have and what kind of relationship do you want to have with this team?

4. What do you see as the primary need in our current cultural moment?

Somebody's answer to the first question was: In a United States of Earth.

This would be wonderful, however, it will only work with one language, one currency and one government like in the United States of America today. Our planet already has a fairly universal language. This global language seems to exist in English, as it is by far the most commonly spoken second language in the world. A world currency seems presently to fall under the auspices of the U.S. dollar. Most astute people throughout the world seem to place the most trust in the U.S. dollar. Finally, we have to look to a planetary government. If we look to the United Nations Assembly as an obvious candidate we will be disappointed. The United Nations simply reflects the past, the way in which the planet has organized itself for far too long, that is in independent states. Looking at the inner workings of the United Nations we see it made up of self centered individuals so absorbed with self that they are barely conscious of the nations they represent. These individuals apparently follow the path of least resistance. Simply, they do whatever the majority of the pack does. It is an infallible way to protect their own jobs and guarantee their financial security. Our world deserves and demands a new type of World Government. One venerable suggestion is Mondale Lottocracy. This form of government guarantees a true representation of the people. Self-interest is meticulously excluded. The sense of global awareness and togetherness projected by a global lottocracy insures a true representation of people. This form of government would magnify the inter-connectedness and interdependence of all peoples of the earth. For Mondal Lottocracy go to:spam link

 

[zomgwtf]

My answer would be: Canada.

From what I've seen and experienced of our neighbours to the south I think Canada would make a much better choice

 

[Al68]

Some time ago, Deepak Chopra appeared as a featured guest on the virtual seminar, The Evolutionary Worldview. Speaking with EnlightenNext founder Andrew Cohen about what it takes to be a true evolutionary leader, Chopra challenged the thousands of listeners from around the world to answer four questions about their visions for the future:

1. What kind of world do you want to live in and what kind of world do you want your children and grandchildren to live in?

One in which people are free instead of being "led". Governments need to be led, people don't. People are not sheep.

One in which society isn't controlled, shaped, modeled, etc. by government.

One in which the primary function of government is protecting liberty, not controlling society in general.

One like the U.S. was designed to be, but has been going in the opposite direction for decades.

 

[aquitaine]

Nice to see one of the kings of psuedoscience finally has something useful to say.

 

[Al68]

Nice to see one of the kings of psuedoscience finally has something useful to say.

Who are you referring to? If it's me, could you refresh my memory on what "pseudoscience" you're referring to?

 

[Proton Soup]

there's no point in trying to do something artificial like form a single world government. if such a thing is to exist, i think it will evolve on its own. but as it is, we are still all so different, with competing interests, that trying to force such a thing on people would result in more strife, not less.

 

[aquitaine]

Who are you referring to? If it's me, could you refresh my memory on what "pseudoscience" you're referring to?

Not you, I was referring to Deepak Chopra. This guy is notorious for his new age alternative medicine nonsense and willingness to abuse, distort, and misrepresent quantum physics to do it.

 

[lawtonfogle]

My answer would be: Canada.

From what I've seen and experienced of our neighbours to the south I think Canada would make a much better choice

Well, we need someone else besides Canada (or Australia) for our internet laws.

Australia with their banning small breast on adults, and Canada with their making it illegal to talk to minors online (because any form of conversation with a minor is building up a relationship with a minor, and is thus can be considered a form of luring the minor, which is an offense) make for some pretty strict internet regulations.

 

[zomgwtf]

Canada with their making it illegal to talk to minors online .

Huh? Citation to Canadian Criminal Code for this please?

 

[cesiumfrog]

it will only work with one language, one currency and one government like in the United States of America today. Our planet already has a fairly universal language. This global language seems to exist in English, as it is by far the most commonly spoken second language in the world.

I dispute your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnologue_list_of_most_spoken_languages" . I think what you're saying boils down to that in your mind, you think everything everywhere needs to be just the way you're already accustomed to things being where you are now. No doubt English is the most common in your experience. Perhaps if your United States could first demonstrate a commitment to less offensive policies with regard to the rest of the world..

Is the particular "lottocracy" you propose any different from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy" ?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Norway and Sweden have pretty good internet laws. I think we need to separate DRM laws vs. Anti-Predator laws. The former needs to die for lack of working, and the latter needs to be intelligently stepped up.

Sweden has the somewhat difficult-to-apply "Virtual child pornography is equivalent to 'real' child pornography" law. I really wonder how they're going to apply that in practice.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I can't find a scrap to support his statement, except that you can't have a lewd discussion with a minor... which seems pretty much universal. I for one, liked Canada more before they got their version of the RIAA et al.

The issue is that you cannot 'lure' a minor. Normally, this means you cannot get a minor to meet you for the purposes of any crime (namely something sexual). The issue is that the definition of luring a minor has been expanded to it is near pointless.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/Luring_Charges_091203/20091203?hub=Canada

A Supreme Court of Canada ruling has expanded the definition of Internet luring to include anyone having an inappropriate conversation with a child -- even if the chats aren't sexual in nature and the accused never intended to meet the alleged victim.

Inappropriate could mean something as simple as a sexual joke which was done in a chat room where a minor was present. Now, one can rightfully point out that no decent prosecutor would ever charge you for something as trivial as that, but the problem is there are a few people out there who want to appear so tough on sex crime, they abuse whatever laws they can find.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Wow, that is tough. I can see how it's distasteful and sick, but illegal? I look forward to seeing that first test case!

I look at the issue two ways.

One, if government money is going to protect children, make sure it is protecting real children, not drawings. Now, hunting down images involving real children is protecting real children, but going purely after drawn stuff is not.

Two, without further study showing differently, the drawn stuff may actually act as a diversion to give some pedophiles an option for sexual release that does not involve real children. Perhaps by banning it, you make them go and seek the real stuff instead (thus increasing demand, thus likely increasing supply, thus likely increasing abuse of actual children). Now, someone may point out the drawn stuff acts like a gateway drug, but I haven't ever seen evidence to defend that point.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I have to say, I agree with everything you've said in your post. It seems like a terrible waste of limited resources, when real child pornography requires a real child, and a drawing does not. I also don't believe that pedophilia is so well understood that the "gateway drug" analogy can be verified, and from what studies I have seen, people usually start with abuse, not with pornography. Sad, but there we have it.

The closest 'study' I have ever seen on this issue (and I use ' because I don't remember if it was accepted in a journal, but it may have been a conference paper) was dealing with normal pornography in general, and showed that there was a correlation between the introduction of pornography in a society and the reduction of sex crimes. Of course, there are so many other factors, that that alone means so little until you account for them (and I don't believe they did as they didn't have enough data to do such).

 

[lawtonfogle]

I don't know, in the case referenced we're talking about a 33 yr old man posing as a 17 year old girl, talking to a 12 year old. That strikes me as somewhat ominous, even if nothing had happened YET. For the legalities of it... I don't know, but if I had a kid, I would want to know what possible reason a grown man has to be online chatting with kids. On the other hand, if you're in a general chat and one of the people there is a minor, but you are not focused in private chats with them, that's pretty much XboxLive!

This is a tough one to call...

If it is tough to call, I like to lean towards allowing it (I tend towards less laws when possible) and just educating parents and children on what to watch out for. Of course, the big issue is when you are talking to someone (not about anything sexual), and halfway through the conversation, they mention they are 12 or 14 or something. Should you just stop talking to them right then, especially if what ever you were discussing they were competent in? It seems rude, and there would be no reason to stop then and there, except for such a law and for the 'people will think I'm some sex offender' fear.

 

[Al68]

Sweden has the somewhat difficult-to-apply "Virtual child pornography is equivalent to 'real' child pornography" law. I really wonder how they're going to apply that in practice.

Ask for ID. How else would they determine if a virtual person was a minor or not?

 

[Galteeth]

Ask for ID. How else would they determine if a virtual person was a minor or not?

Sure, but first we really have to crack down on all those virtual shops that sell virtual fake ids. A drawing of a fake ID can be hard to distinguish from a drawing of a real ID, especially since some people who draw real IDs aren't that good at drawing. If the hologram on the virtual ID looks iffy, the excuse "I thought he was a bad artist" can't cut it any more. Not in today's fake modern world.