Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
I've often heard the matter raised; 'How truly wondrous would a world without personal bias and judgement be?' Most generally as a rhetorical question. Proposed as kindling for a prattling conversation which inevitably leads to the ultimatum of agreeing, or facing a social stigmata.
Now, mind you, I haven't come here, nor begun writting this, to construct the basis of a discussion of judgement. And I most certainly will not conclude as such! That's a different matter in and of itself.
Rather, such a conversation as I have formerly mentioned led me to thinking, what would a world of utter and complete segregation result in? A world of people separated by age, religion, race, sex.
Absurd? Morally reprehensive? Try to be objective though, and ask yourselves:
• In a world that segregated and treated everybody in the exact same way, would Ageism, Sexism, Racism, or religious hated exist?
• With the lacking of prejudice by age, sex, race, etcetera. . . Would prejudice of other things arise? For example, hair color, height, personal opinions.
• What sorts of crimes would be more common place? Which less so?
• How would the arts evolve? Think, painting, architecture, sculpture, music, etcetera.
• What would the state of peace and war be²? Would the world be more tranquil, or tumultuous?
• Psychologically, how would this effect the populous?
• Would such a state of life last, or would people in the same niche as M.L.K come forth to re-establish unity?
Obviously there are quite a few ways this conversation could go, so feel free to further on any of these, to help fan the flames of hopefully intellectual discussion. Also, each of us have different viewpoints, some people may be more interested in the state of Society, and others the state of Media. Politics or Art, Literature or even the environment¹, don't be afraid to bring want you have or are inclined to, to the discussion.
Happy debating.
(¹Yes, the environment would totally be affected by that!)
(²To clarify, seperate governments could (probably) not exist in this sort of situation, so what I'm asking here is both what the state of violence would be, and if the world would rebel against itself and the general state.)
Disclaimer:
Spoiler:
Now, it's plain to comprehend that such a situation is substantially unlikely, and I eerily feel the need to spell out the fact of my personal disagreement in the sentiment of what this thread pertains to. So, to majorly simplify this for D&D's. . . Um. . . Slower. . . Denizens. . . I only started this topic as I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss. Cool yo' beans. [/disclaimer]
A world with full segregation wouldn't be possible if you include sex and age being segregated. How would people breed, artificially? How would you do parenting in such a world? Honestly, the only segregation that I could see possible is by ethnicity, religion, or general ideals. However, with that kind of segregation, there could be more wars just for the land, or even just dominance. Genocide wouldn't be as much of a harsh concept since we'll treat all others as inferior and find easier ways to justify it.
Segregation of any kind is just bad, IMO. Learning to come together, treat others as you would have them treat you, and knowing and accepting differences is better for the long-term.
Yeah I too was wondering if we are assuming segregation of all of these factors at once. And if so, if there'd be social stability since, as mentioned, reproduction would be difficult, and societies of children/seniors could hardly sustain themselves, etc.
Regardless, any sort of complete segregation would not erase prejudices for other groups of people. But even amongst themselves, people find things that they can judge, and being segregated may allow these judgments to develop into prejudices of such things as height, hair color, etc. as you mentioned.
I think something to consider is boundaries. With segregated communities, certain groups are bound to consider their share of land, power, etc. as inadequate. And also, crossing lines could become an issue, considering crime, and considering inter-group contact. I don't think it's healthy to be surrounded by one group of people, so there's no doubt inter-group contact would occur, and to the disapproval of others. Such things can cause violence, war, etc.
Ultimately there's not much that can come from complete segregation. I think the reasons behind it's disbandment in modern society are the same things that would plague the societies in such a "ideally Utopian society."
I'm not sure what you mean by segregation. You say complete and utter.
Given a simple example of a world with only 2 possibilities for 3 criteria for segregation - say sex, race, and religion - how can we make reasonable 'segregations'? There would be 2^3=8 (mbr/fbr/mba/fba/mwr/fwr/mwa/fwa) possible combinations. I find these groupings to be highly arbitrary, as each criterium is split between 4 groups - wouldn't individuals group themselves based on the mere presence of similarities instead of the total absence of differences? I conclude that you can only segregate effectively between one or two variables, and the more variables you try to include the more diluted/ineffective the segregation becomes. Complete seems to be a dead end ad infinitum.
As for utter, the posters above have addressed that issue.
I don't believe that you can treat people the same way by segregating them. In fact, I think it would lead to more mistreatment, as you have clearly stratified the population into different groups. At least theoretically, if everybody was included in one body, there could be no official reason to treat them differently. When people are segregated, it creates an explicit other which leads to people acting more xenophobically. Humans have a tendency to treat outgroups differently, and if that kind of difference becomes legitimated or "official", then it'll only make that unequal treatment easier - maybe sanctioned is a better way of putting it.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you mean "segregation" as leaving others alone versus splitting people apart? The latter is active and implies some body is doing the segregating. The former is passive and about noninterference, perhaps a passive separation vs segregation. Given how people tend to naturally associate into groups, I'd say that a "complete and utter" segregation would require no small amount of interference so I'm confused as to which it is.
Let's assume we're not talking about some kind of imaginary total segregation where everyone is basically a clone of one another. Even a rather mild amount of segregation can be bad. If you get all your news from one source, you're leaving yourself open to misinformation. If you don't try to talk to someone you don't know, you'll never make friends or have a relationship. And so on.
I can only extrapolate based on what I've experienced. Already we have some good examples around the world. For instance, look at the people in your area (family, friends, whatever). Have they ever left home, traveled abroad, lived with people from another culture? The experience of people who are different from you can be pretty great, can lead to all sorts of chances and new beginnings for a person. Sure, there are those cases where a person is confronted with something too different for them to handle and they react badly, violently, harshly, but isn't that likely because they've been too segregated?
Let me also bring up the example of gay people. In most places in the world we're expected to be straight. It's assumed. When someone turns out not to be they're upsetting the system (or, in this example, upsetting the segregation). You can't really help it. Some people are going to be gay. Also, some people are going to be autistic. Some will be geniuses, trouble makers, and basically you can't predict or constrain things enough to account for the fact that people change over time. I mean, if you did segregate people, what would you do when someone changed enough that they no longer fit into that group? Move them somewhere else? They'll have knowledge and experience from their original group that's going to make them different from whatever other group you put them in.
A world with full segregation wouldn't be possible if you include sex and age being segregated. How would people breed, artificially? How would you do parenting in such a world? Honestly,the only segregation that I could see possible is by ethnicity, religion, or general ideals. However, with that kind of segregation, there could be more wars just for the land, or even just dominance. Genocide wouldn't be as much of a harsh concept since we'll treat all others as inferior and find easier ways to justify it.
Segregation of any kind is just bad, IMO. Learning to come together, treat others as you would have them treat you, and knowing and accepting differences is better for the long-term.
I'm not entirerly sure how you could be confused about the matter of reproduction, as most people can understand the concept of a cryobank. But artificial insemination is indeed possible. As are other methods of third party reproduction.
As for parenting, the child would be removed, but not parentless.
There lies other forms of communication aside from personal. In fact, in a world of Email, Text Messages, and Forums such as this one, a lacking of personal face-to-face conversations is hardly difficult to grasp.
New York and L.A have yet to go to war, am I correct? In such a case as a state of total segregation a world government would be necessary. In this example, the world government would be the U.S, and New York and L.A each a different race respectively. They may on occasion have a dispute, but the U.S would not let them wage a full fledged war. Again, the U.S., New York, L.A. thing is a metaphor.
Though challenging I know, as I have requested in my original post, please try to remain unbaised.
Yeah I too was wondering if we are assuming segregation of all of these factors at once. And if so, if there'd be social stability since, as mentioned, reproduction would be difficult, and societies of children/seniors could hardly sustain themselves, etc.
Regardless, any sort of complete segregation would not erase prejudices for other groups of people. But even amongst themselves, people find things that they can judge, and being segregated may allow these judgments to develop into prejudices of such things as height, hair color, etc. as you mentioned.
I think something to consider is boundaries. With segregated communities, certain groups are bound to consider their share of land, power, etc. as inadequate. And also, crossing lines could become an issue, considering crime, and considering inter-group contact. I don't think it's healthy to be surrounded by one group of people, so there's no doubt inter-group contact would occur, and to the disapproval of others. Such things can cause violence, war, etc.
Ultimately there's not much that can come from complete segregation. I think the reasons behind it's disbandment in modern society are the same things that would plague the societies in such a "ideally Utopian society."
I had actually assumed that the figuring of a world government would be an easy one, as otherwise such a thing as total segregation could not be enforced effectively, but perhaps I should have broached the topic in the first place.
Also, I'm not asking what would "Come from it", but rather, how things would be. For example, Blues music exists, indirectly, because of African slavery in the U.S. Without blues, there would be no Rock, R&B or Jazz. Without Rock, R&B or Jazz, there would be no Punk, Funk, or Pop.
When races interact, great things can happen. Or, terrible things. Hitler killed six million people because he wanted to kill all jews.
I didn't set any time period of when this would be, because I wanted to hear what people would think of. What, for example, would music be like today if blues never came into existence?
I'm not sure what you mean by segregation. You say complete and utter.
Given a simple example of a world with only 2 possibilities for 3 criteria for segregation - say sex, race, and religion - how can we make reasonable 'segregations'? There would be 2^3=8 (mbr/fbr/mba/fba/mwr/fwr/mwa/fwa) possible combinations. I find these groupings to be highly arbitrary, as each criterium is split between 4 groups -wouldn't individuals group themselves based on the mere presence of similarities instead of the total absence of differences? I conclude that you can only segregate effectively between one or two variables, and the more variables you try to include the more diluted/ineffective the segregation becomes. Complete seems to be a dead end ad infinitum.
As for utter, the posters above have addressed that issue.
I don't believe that you can treat people the same way by segregating them. In fact, I think it would lead to more mistreatment, as you have clearly stratified the population into different groups. At least theoretically,if everybody was included in one body, there could be no official reason to treat them differently. When people are segregated, it creates an explicit other which leads to people acting more xenophobically. Humans have a tendency to treat outgroups differently, and if that kind of difference becomes legitimated or "official", then it'll only make that unequal treatment easier - maybe sanctioned is a better way of putting it.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but do you mean "segregation" as leaving others alone versus splitting people apart? The latter is active and implies somebody is doing the segregating.The former is passive and about noninterference, perhaps a passive separation vs segregation. Given how people tend to naturally associate into groups, I'd say that a "complete and utter" segregation would require no small amount of interference so I'm confused as to which it is.
In a world that mostly lacks segregation, (mostly, as a key word) do you see a complete lack of judgement? People are treated differently all the time merely because of their skin color, anatomy, or beliefs. It may not be the sweeping trend that some people like to believe, but discrimination is most certainly still existant.
In such a situation each race would either have to either be seperated geographically with no way of transportation, and each society would still need to segregate gender and age, or there would be a major world power. Not that logic seems very present in this thread right now, but the world power would be more believable, to say the least.
This alone is a very simple deduction, and should be garnered quite swiftly with a very sparse line of thought.
Let's assume we're not talking about some kind of imaginary total segregation where everyone is basically a clone of one another. Even a rather mild amount of segregation can be bad. If you get all your news from one source, you're leaving yourself open to misinformation. If you don't try to talk to someone you don't know, you'll never make friends or have a relationship. And so on.
I can only extrapolate based on what I've experienced. Already we have some good examples around the world. For instance, look at the people in your area (family, friends, whatever). Have they ever left home, traveled abroad, lived with people from another culture? The experience of people who are different from you can be pretty great, can lead to all sorts of chances and new beginnings for a person. Sure, there are those cases where a person is confronted with something too different for them to handle and they react badly, violently, harshly, but isn't that likely because they've been too segregated?
Let me also bring up the example of gay people. In most places in the world we're expected to be straight. It's assumed. When someone turns out not to be they're upsetting the system (or, in this example, upsetting the segregation). You can't really help it. Some people are going to be gay. Also, some people are going to be autistic. Some will be geniuses, trouble makers, and basically you can't predict or constrain things enough to account for the fact that people change over time. I mean, if you did segregate people, what would you do when someone changed enough that they no longer fit into that group? Move them somewhere else? They'll have knowledge and experience from their original group that's going to make them different from whatever other group you put them in.
I'm particularly pleased to see someone bring up such a sceanario.
I didn't mention personalities as they serve as the anchor which (thankfully) stops such a world from existing. Humans aren't units. Humans are variables. Every living human will think, speak, move, act, differently.
Which, to put plainly, means that we all are truly one unit. One thing that may have differences, but ultimately, is the same.
The case of moving a person from one, eh, division for lack of a better word, would already be present. People do not remain one age forever, and beliefs and faiths do change.
Also, guys, I did say segregation, not seclusion. There's a difference.
In a world that mostly lacks segregation, (mostly, as a key word) do you see a complete lack of judgement? People are treated differently all the time merely because of their skin color, anatomy, or beliefs. It may not be the sweeping trend that some people like to believe, but discrimination is most certainly still existent.
In such a situation each race would either have to either be separated geographically with no way of transportation, and each society would still need to segregate gender and age, or there would be a major world power. Not that logic seems very present in this thread right now, but the world power would be more believable, to say the least.
This alone is a very simple deduction, and should be garnered quite swiftly with a very sparse line of thought.
How much of this is hypothetical? Because if you separate people with no transportation, they'll end up developing transportation sooner or later, as the progression of technology occurs. The mixing of peoples is inevitable, as is aging, as is reproduction? and to assume for argument's sake that it can't happen is putting a lot of clamps on human nature - so much that I don't think that the thought experiment can tell us anything.
In any case, people will continue to find reasons to discriminate amongst each other and treat some groups poorly. Take Japan, for example which had as homogenous a society as they come. They still had an underclass of people that were ostracized from society. Class would sooner or later arise even in the most homogenous of societies. Hard times happen, and people will fight to survive - but if survival isn't an aspect of your thought experiment, that's taking a major bite out of human nature. I feel that the discrimination of groups and treating in-group members better than out-group is influenced by the survival instinct.
I don't know, if you mean for complete segregation, then you'll have to put everybody into a box - there'll always be some form of difference. Even if you had twins put together, sooner or later they'll have to be "segregated".
And what's judgment? People make judgments or appraisals out of anything, it's a human behaviour. We judge the weather, whether a piece of fruit is ripe enough, whether we have enough resources to get something done - why would we not judge other human beings? I feel the only way to make sure people are treated the same is to brainwash them into it - it sounds like a idea that is counter to our nature.
...
What about this topic makes you think that it wouldn't be hypothetical?
Also, you're beginning to pick at words.
It's quite clear that my use of the word judgment on that occasion did not mean the general deductive reasoning of the human race.
We've already established the fact that humans would need to be individually seperated for total segregation, which is why I mentioned age, race, sex, and religion.
If you're having trouble understanding, then just ask about whatever it is that's giving you so many problems.
It would destroy our species. It was integration that allowed our species to evolve better in the first place, the genetic diversity and incorporating similar species into our genetic makeup is what gave us the ability to speak, resist common pathogens, and reproduce at a now alarming rate. If we take all that away, we're the most prone species on the planet, weaker than mice. It is our differences that make us strongest, not our similarities.
However, prejudice is an unavoidable and very ugly reality we just have to learn to face and deal with constructively. For example, our bias for things that are "too different" is what prevented us from trying to mix with species that were capable of carrying viruses and bacteria which would have evolved into extremely deadly pathogens. AIDS is one that we did not avoid, because our food consumption is less bias and ... well ... some people like to eat monkey. So SIDS, on the hands of those preparing monkey meat before learning that we need to wash them between preparing and eating to avoid such things, eventually evolved into AIDS and now we have a huge problem on our hands. If we had been a bit more bias in our food choices, this may never have happened.
It's a survival instinct, if you want a simple label for it, and we have to learn to overcome are detrimental instincts as a species, it's not something you can stop over night. Took several thousand years before we overcame the instinct to fling poo, after all .... and we still have to teach our children not to do it. There are some learned biases though, and those we can address, but there is no simple answer as to how because no two organisms are alike, so the solutions will also never be alike.
As for religious hatred, stop giving the delusion a free pass and treat it as it should be, that will dull the hatred it creates to a moan.
...
What about this topic makes you think that it wouldn't be hypothetical?
Also, you're beginning to pick at words.
It's quite clear that my use of the word judgment on that occasion did not mean the general deductive reasoning of the human race.
We've already established the fact that humans would need to be individually separated for total segregation, which is why I mentioned age, race, sex, and religion.
If you're having trouble understanding, then just ask about whatever it is that's giving you so many problems.
I asked how much of it is hypothetical. If every human was individually separated, then there'd be no society - only 7 billion solitary confinement rooms - so there wouldn't be anyone to 'judge'. If every human wasn't separated and some semblance of society could exist, the humans would continue to judge whoever's around them like they judge everything else that matters in their lives. You don't think people judging each other has something to do with judgment in general? Don't take it personally or anything, but it's confusing that you should have a scenario of individual separation and still mention concepts that pertain to society.
We've already established the fact that humans would need to be individually seperated for total segregation, [Which is why I mentioned age, race, sex, and religion.
It would destroy our species. It was integration that allowed our species to evolve better in the first place, the genetic diversity and incorporating similar species into our genetic makeup is what gave us the ability to speak, resist common pathogens, and reproduce at a now alarming rate. If we take all that away, we're the most prone species on the planet, weaker than mice. It is our differences that make us strongest, not our similarities.
However, prejudice is an unavoidable and very ugly reality we just have to learn to face and deal with constructively. For example, our bias for things that are "too different" is what prevented us from trying to mix with species that were capable of carrying viruses and bacteria which would have evolved into extremely deadly pathogens. AIDS is one that we did not avoid, because our food consumption is less bias and ... well ... some people like to eat monkey. So SIDS, on the hands of those preparing monkey meat before learning that we need to wash them between preparing and eating to avoid such things, eventually evolved into AIDS and now we have a huge problem on our hands. If we had been a bit more bias in our food choices,thismay never have happened.
It's a survival instinct, if you want a simple label for it, and we have to learn to overcome are detrimental instincts as a species, it's not something you can stop over night. Took several thousand years before we overcame the instinct to fling poo, after all .... and we still have to teach our children not to do it. There are some learned biases though, and those we can address, but there is no simple answer as to how because no two organisms are alike, so the solutions will also never be alike.
As for religious hatred, stop giving the delusion a free pass and treat it as it should be, that will dull the hatred it creates to a moan.
Interesting to see someone involve the evolution of the human race, and I did not know that AIDs was a mutation f SIDs, kudos.
Religious discrimination is an actual thing.
The way to stop any sort of discrimination is to just stop talking about it, but in this case I thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss.
But serious, I have never met, seen, or heard of a kid who wants to throw crap.
In that case, I think there'd still be judgment due to social status and class. And race and religion are fluid and can change - differences in a common "race" can turn into ethnic differences that can go genocidal to the extreme.
You begin by asking "what would a world of utter and complete segregation result in?" but you end up dismissing that, eh? I think that people will continue judging each other, and find reasons to do so if you take away age, race, sex, religion, whatnot.
I may have mentioned individual seperation, but had you finished the sentence you would have found that I also dismissed it.
@KittenKoder:
Spoiler:
Interesting to see someone involve the evolution of the human race, and I did not know that AIDs was a mutation f SIDs, kudos.
Religious discrimination is an actual thing.
The way to stop any sort of discrimination is to just stop talking about it, but in this case I thought it would be an interesting subject to discuss.
But serious, I have never met, seen, or heard of a kid who wants to throw crap.
Not really, religious discrimination is an inherent result of the delusion that we call religion. Of course we could get into a whole discussion on the topic on it's own but to demonstrate the point, what would you consider a person who cries out that there is a giant pink elephant to which everyone else must throw walnuts at in order to survive the next day? You can replace "giant pink elephant" with any unsupported being and "walnuts" with anything from money to ... begging. So no, unless religion is addressed as the delusion it is, it will always produce hatred between the people with differing delusions, that's what makes delusion dangerous, anything that challenges a delusion is seen as a threat and therefore must be hated.
But not talking about something will never end discrimination, hatred, or any other form of bias, and would potentially escalate such matters. Remember the prohibition era of the US, the solution to stop people from drinking was to remove the "temptation" to do so, same thing you are proposing with not talking about it, and would result in much the same situation. Only one factor has ever successfully made a dent in discrimination, and that has been higher educational standards. Though some things have helped to reduce it a lot, ironically they all do exactly the opposite of "not talking about it."
The internet for one, the global connectivity has allowed people to become exposed, on personal levels, to other cultures and people that would not have been possible 30 years ago. This exposure, fueled by our empathy, has resulted in us being more aware of injustices based on discrimination, thus exposing any discrimination we may have done ourselves, conscience does the rest.
Video games, even before online play, have also caused a slow decline in such matters for much the same reason. It's hard to find a group of gamers that is not filled with a very colorful variety. After you practice ignoring the stereotypes about people long enough to game, it becomes second nature, you eventually stop even considering stereotypes into your way of thinking.
While the internet and video game influence is really only based on correlation, the possibility is there, we just have no means of truly discovering which came first. Educational standards, however, have had a demonstrably direct link to prejudice and personal bias, which is not surprising as our personalities, who we are, are collections of responses to stimuli influenced by what we know and what we have experienced, the mental traits we evolved as a species are only secondary to personality traits, genetically driven mental traits only act as a foundation, basically.
@Blah:
Had I meant individual seperation, I would have said individual seperation, not complete segregation. Segregation in the U.S, for example was not complete. There was still interaction between 'White people' and 'Black people'. Not good interaction, but interaction regardless.
@KittenKoder:
Not to disagree with your highly atheistic perspective, but the 'delusion' of religion has done as much good as it has evil. Possibly more. Regardless, this is hardly the place to discuss personal spiritual beliefs.
Wary to encourage futher off topic discussion I'll neglect replying to the rest.
I'll ask that a mod close this thread. As it has, if anything, become counter-productive, and has been made up half-way of my trying to explain the topic, and the other half mostly of off topic discussion.
Human beings, and other animals, will always use discrimination as a tool. Humans are inclined to clump certain people who display certain physical or intellectual traits into groups for personal comfort; when a label is applied to someone, it makes it easier to talk about, converse with, or refer to that person. This is a natural inclination towards order and organization, something humans have always possessed.
Humans have always identified with other people like them, also causing discrimination to arise. For example, African Americans may gravitate towards others of their race because they feel at home within a group of people that looks, talks, or thinks like them based on their culture and heritage. In comparison, a white person in a largely African American/Hispanic/Asian/etc. neighborhood may become more involved with other white individuals in that area due to common ground/appearance. We are most comfortable with those who we can immediately identify with; physical traits are some of the most easily identified similarities.
I think we can all agree that creating exclusive groups isolates them from other groups and individuals, which is how stereotypes and stigma arise. However, these isolated groups can also provide immense emotional and mental support, which perpetuates the cycle. Because we as humans are inclined towards these sorts of behaviors, I am not sure that we would be able to create a society in which there was no discrimination whatsoever; we will always identify people based on their appearance (not only physical attractiveness but physical traits such as skin/hair color or height and weight) and it would be nearly impossible to breed out these natural tendencies. We will always find something to use as an identifier, and thus I do not believe it would be possible for any human culture to arise without identifiers.
