How to make the world a better place?

[Ak47]

I'm doing some personal research on this subject for a personal project. This question is pretty open ended. Truly, i'm trying to get ideas related to making the US a better place, not the world. So, i'm not as interested in ways to fix 3rd world countries, etc since they don't pertain to the US directly.

I'm not looking for individual ways to make a difference, but rather major things that could be changed to make things better for everyone such as economy, education, poverty rates, government, etc. Both broad and specific answers and ideas are welcomed. Thanks!

[Ak47]

looking for both problems and solutions. also partial solutions. thanks.

[JimOfferman]

• Countries accepting and respecting the sovereignty of other countries
• Religious factions -including the current US government- accepting and respecting the existence of other religions
• The West recognizing that forcing democracy on everyone does not make the world a better place
• The US recognizing that their War On Terror is giving terrorist more -not less- reasons to keep up their terrible practices.

All those things are beyond my power or ability to change, but I can make a difference by treating all the people I come across with respect and dignity (even if they do not treat me the same).

[theknightwhosaysni-NI]

Personnally I have difficulties to find a major thing that could make things better for everyone, especially if this major thing is coming from the "top". (I mean the political power in its actual state)

Countries accepting and respecting the sovereignty of other countries

For instance, this is controversial because it means that if authorities in a country decide to make dreadful acts like mass killings in their own country, the international community should not interfere in the name of sovereignty.

# The US recognizing that their War On Terror is giving terrorist more -not less- reasons to keep up their terrible practices.

Honestly I think that the US power is already aware that it's war on terror is not efficient and produces more terror than peace. It's obvious to me that there is some hidden agenda here, probably not something complicated but just that they're more interested in power than peace.
Those who are not aware of this agenda in my opinion are the controled minds of the population of voters. The voters are individuals. If you get free and conscious individuals, you don't get dishonest leaders.

That's a reason why I believe much more in the addition of individual efforts to make the world better. Consequently, I like everything that motivates people to reconnect with their freedom and evolve as individuals towards a more peaceful, responsible, courageaous and loving lifestye.
Sure motivating individuals to live a better life brings results only on the long term. It's not a quick fix coming from a new reform by politicians in power. However it's the best solution I see.

[Ak47]

individuality - well noted. it's okay if it's a long process, anything that could have signifigant change within the course of say 150 years is up for grabs here.

[ogrekilleat]

I vote for better public transportation. Make it easier for people without cars to travel, and encourage people to cut down on using cars in favor of pleasant, efficient, and cost-effective transportation. Good for the environment, good for people.

[monicadennis]

It can be done by love.Love can bring the peace to world......

Marriage makes relation .So we have to take marriage between countries,states ,religious and caste.........

---------
Thanks.....

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Ak47

I'm doing some personal research on this subject for a personal project. This question is pretty open ended. Truly, i'm trying to get ideas related to making the US a better place, not the world. So, i'm not as interested in ways to fix 3rd world countries, etc since they don't pertain to the US directly.

I'm not looking for individual ways to make a difference, but rather major things that could be changed to make things better for everyone such as economy, education, poverty rates, government, etc. Both broad and specific answers and ideas are welcomed. Thanks!

Study psychopathy, the true root of most evils.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Ak47

I'm doing some personal research on this subject for a personal project. This question is pretty open ended. Truly, i'm trying to get ideas related to making the US a better place, not the world. So, i'm not as interested in ways to fix 3rd world countries, etc since they don't pertain to the US directly.

Health: Slap a tax on the fat content of junk food and use the revenue to feed the starving.

Education: Teach people to speak properly and politely and to start saying ‘Please, may I have’, instead of ‘Gimme’ and ‘I wanna’.

Ban all violent computer games and television shows.

[Barcs]

Ban all violent computer games and television shows.

I couldn't disagree more with that more. Freedom of speech/expression/art should not be supressed. The main reason that there is so much violence in video games and in the movies is because it is a reflection of reality (not the other way around). The world is a violent place, and unfortunately it sells. If you want to push for less violence in multimedia, then the best thing you can do is not buy the products. You can't just ban them all because one kid out of tens of millions, flips out and shoots up his school. That kind of thing is actually pretty rare, and is usually the fault of mental problems. I think that if we focus on a more peaceful world, it will eventually refelect in our games and entertainment.

[Paul C]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Ban all violent computer games and television shows.

I also disagree with this one. Violence in video games can sometimes be portrayed in an insightful way, besides being used as an entertainment element. The Half-life series, for example, is rather violent at times (it is a First Person Shooter, after all) yet still touches on many areas relating to mortality and humanity in general.

That's not to say there aren't video games and television shows out there which promote violence, ill behavior, etc.

Originally Posted by Barcs

The main reason that there is so much violence in video games and in the movies is because it is a reflection of reality (not the other way around).

Indeed, this explains it rather well. And yes, freedom of expression is important.

[coLLege kid07]

Originally Posted by ogrekilleat

I vote for better public transportation. Make it easier for people without cars to travel, and encourage people to cut down on using cars in favor of pleasant, efficient, and cost-effective transportation. Good for the environment, good for people.

Promoting the use of environment friendly cars and products. (solar powered/electric powered machines) This would greatly help not only the U.S. but the whole world.

[fwellers]

The UN Millenium Development Goals.
Goal number 1 !!!!!!!!!!!!


Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality

Goal 5: Improve Maternal Health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Barcs

The main reason that there is so much violence in video games and in the movies is because it is a reflection of reality (not the other way around). The world is a violent place, and unfortunately it sells.

What you focus on is what you get (LoA). Violence begets violence.
TV shows and video games are getting more and more graphic and explicit, with increasing sexual content. We are becoming hardened to it. Think about what your children are doing - wouldn't you prefer them to be doing something a bit more healthy, instead of interacting with this kind of rubbish?

[Barcs]

What you focus on is what you get (LoA). Violence begets violence.
TV shows and video games are getting more and more graphic and explicit, with increasing sexual content. We are becoming hardened to it.

This may be true, but it is reality. Personally I'd rather know what reality is, than pretend to live in some happy go lucky bubble. You can say that violence causes violence, but that is irrelevent because TV is fake violence. Does fake violence cause real violence? I don't think it does. 99% of people who play video games do not actually take those actions outside of the game and can tell the difference between fake and real. If anything it's the other way around.

Think about what your children are doing - wouldn't you prefer them to be doing something a bit more healthy, instead of interacting with this kind of rubbish?

Yes obviously, which is why, as a parent, it is vital to get your child involved with physical activities and other healthy activities (mentally as well as physically), instead of buying them violent video games. Violent games and the likes are for older kids/adults. This is why regular cable TV censors all of this and you have to pay extra to actually watch a movie in its original state. I can't stand watching good movies when they are butchered by censors. It ruins the art. Art imitates reality and that's all it is. Banning art is a facist way of "improving" things, IMO, and it would not improve any of the real violence in the world (ie terrorism, iraq, gang violence, etc).

Also I'm not so sure if TV has really gotten any more violent. I mean back in the 80s we had Freddy, Jason and all kinds of horror/dismemberment films. Not much has changed with that besides improving the video quality. Video games were only 8 bit graphics back then, so real violence was hard to depict. The FCC has gotten WAY more strict in the past 5 years alone.

[Brutha]

wouldn't you prefer them to be doing something a bit more healthy, instead of interacting with this kind of rubbish?

That isn't the question.
Do we value our right to free speech enough to prevent some people to make negative videos or games or is it that bad that our children are influenced by virtual violence that we have to cut back on basic civil rights.

Do you want a government that cuts back on civil rights when a bit could be improved by restricting civil rights?
Maybe Bush sees documentaries that show how children starve in africa has negative. It could really depress some people to see those poor children.
What about a documentary about civil war in Iraq? If you forbid all violence in TV people in power could use the ban to silence the documentary.

When you start to ban cultural content you should be very very careful. Even if I would agree that it would be better if there was less violence in TV, I think that banning it would be bad public policy.

[fwellers]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That isn't the question.
Do we value our right to free speech enough to prevent some people to make negative videos or games or is it that bad that our children are influenced by virtual violence that we have to cut back on basic civil rights.

Do you want a government that cuts back on civil rights when a bit could be improved by restricting civil rights?
Maybe Bush sees documentaries that show how children starve in africa has negative. It could really depress some people to see those poor children.
What about a documentary about civil war in Iraq? If you forbid all violence in TV people in power could use the ban to silence the documentary.

When you start to ban cultural content you should be very very careful. Even if I would agree that it would be better if there was less violence in TV, I think that banning it would be bad public policy.

Here here. I am a hundred percent behind that. I hate censorship.

[Barcs]

Reality shows are far worse than violent TV, if you ask me. Ban those first. :P

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Barcs

I can't stand watching good movies when they are butchered by censors. It ruins the art. Art imitates reality and that's all it is. Banning art is a facist way of "improving" things, IMO, and it would not improve any of the real violence in the world (ie terrorism, iraq, gang violence, etc).

Displaying gratuitous violence is not art. And it is not all a one way flow - like there is this 'reality' out there, so we have to imitate it in the name of art.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Maybe Bush sees documentaries that show how children starve in africa has negative. It could really depress some people to see those poor children.
What about a documentary about civil war in Iraq? If you forbid all violence in TV people in power could use the ban to silence the documentary.

When you start to ban cultural content you should be very very careful. Even if I would agree that it would be better if there was less violence in TV, I think that banning it would be bad public policy.

When I said ban all violent TV shows and computer games, I meant those that sell because of their high violence content - where the violence contained begins to have a morbid attraction for viewers. In most cases, the graphic display of violence is not integral to the plot, if the work has any artistic value.

[Marth]

help Americans overcome fear, isolation, materialism & patriotism

long term-promote wind energy, join pro peace groups, hang wit me

[Brutha]

When I said ban all violent TV shows and computer games, I meant those that sell because of their high violence content - where the violence contained begins to have a morbid attraction for viewers.

Once you have a law that bans something you aren't the person that determines how the law gets applied.
Your intentions of banning only the "bad things" don't matter that much, because other people find other things "bad".
Civil rights also apply to people who say things (or make art/movies about them) that you don't like.
If you take those civil rights away from those people, they get also damaged in other areas.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Once you have a law that bans something you aren't the person that determines how the law gets applied.
Your intentions of banning only the "bad things" don't matter that much, because other people find other things "bad".
Civil rights also apply to people who say things (or make art/movies about them) that you don't like.
If you take those civil rights away from those people, they get also damaged in other areas.

Article from Reuters 28/11/07.

NEW YORK, Nov 28 (Reuters Life!) - Violence depicted on television, in films and video games raises the risk of aggressive behavior in adults and young viewers and poses a serious threat to public health, according to a new study.

After reviewing more than 50 years of research on the impact of violence in the media, L. Rowell Huesmann, of the University of Michigan, and his colleague Brad Bushman concluded that only smoking posed a greater danger.
"Exposure to violent electronic media has a larger effect than all but one other well known threat to public health. The only effect slightly larger than the effect of media violence on aggression is that of cigarette smoking on lung cancer," he said in a statement.
Smoking, a leading cause of preventable death, is linked to lung cancer and other illnesses.

Huesmann said children spend an average of three hours watching television each day and more than 60 percent of TV programs contain some violence, including 40 percent showing extreme violence.
"Children are also spending an increasingly large amount of time playing video games, most of which contain violence. Video game units are now present in 83 percent of homes with children," he added.

The findings, which are reported in the Journal of Adolescent Health, support earlier research which showed that children who watch violent television shows and who identify with the characters and believe they are real are more likely to be aggressive as adults.
The results were true for both men and women.
"The research clearly shows that exposure to virtual violence increases the risk that both children and adults will behave aggressively," said Huesmann, adding it could have a particularly detrimental effect on the well-being of youngsters.

Although not every child exposed to violence in the media will become aggressive, he said it does not diminish the need for greater control on the part of parents and society of what children are exposed to in films, video games and television programs.

[Brutha]

Although not every child exposed to violence in the media will become aggressive, he said it does not diminish the need for greater control on the part of parents and society of what children are exposed to in films, video games and television programs.

Whether parents should allow their children to watch violent TV is an entirely different debate, because it's about personal decisions.
If you want the governement to act and ban something you need stronger reasons, because you pay a greater price.
Having a strong right to free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than preventing a bit of aggression increase through media violence.

Numbers about the amount of percentage of "violence" in TV or total TV consumptions are pretty irrevelant to the question of whether to ban "violence".
What matters would be numbers about the increase in a violent act like aggravated assault trough media violence.
Rowell doesn't have to be number about that part that matters.

I have also no doubt that you could reduce violence in a city like New York by video tapping every inch of the city.
On the other hand I don't think that the sacrifice of personal privacy is worth video tapping everything.

He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Having a strong right to free speech is more valuable to society as a whole than preventing a bit of aggression increase through media violence.

The free speech argument begins to wear a bit thin after a while.

In England, up to the London bombings of July, 2005, terrorist sympathizers were allowed to stand on street corners, openly preaching terror and murder. Some had come to this country for their own personal safety, and were drawing state benefit, and were abusing that by advocating death to the ‘unbelievers’. They openly encouraged young muslims to take up arms and kill as many as possible. This was all in broad daylight on the streets of England.

The police could do nothing. Our political leaders were embarrassed and didn’t have the guts to do anything about it. It wasn’t PC to question the notion of ‘free speech’. They only decided to take action after many innocent people lost their lives to suicide bombers who had been brainwashed by 'free speech'.

So, no, I don’t believe in free speech. If your words in public incite to hatred, violence and murder, you should be removed from the streets and locked up or deported.

[Brutha]

They openly encouraged young muslims to take up arms and kill as many as possible.

The US military also openly encourages people to join it and go to Iraq and do what the military does (and yes, soldiers kill people).

The police could do nothing. Our political leaders were embarrassed and didn’t have the guts to do anything about it.

On the other hand the Israely police does something in Palestina with the result that there are far more terrorist attacks in Israel.

Direct usage of power is no effective strategy to deal with 4th generation warfare. Don't cut heads of a hydra.

Terrorist attacks are not about body count but about strategic positions. If a terrorist forces the other side to be less flexible, his attack is succesful.
A society that loses it's right of free speech is less flexible.

If you really care about innocend death, terrorism in western states killed nearly nobody compared to other factors like driving cars.

You don't want to restrict the right to drive cars because it leads to so many deaths but you want to restrict the right of freespeech that kills less people as a side effect in allowing spread of ideas of terrorists.

Obviously it's not about the body count but about fear of foreign ideas and foreign culture.

When you restrict one side of telling it story about a conflict you are also a lot more likely to get into bad wars like the Iraq war because you blind yourself to ideas of other people.
If you restrict the flow of ideas, you become less knowledgeable about the other (because you want to protect yourself from their ideas) and make dumm mistakes. Some of those mistakes like the Iraq war cost a lot of innocent lifes (much more lifes than the terrorists killed).

Restricting free speech -> Less knowledge about decisions you have to make -> Dumm mistakes like the Iraq war with lot of casualties

Even if you believe that there are people who profited from Iraq, they needed to convince a lot of people and you can convince people better to make bad decisions if they don't know that the decision is bad because you restrict information flow.

The altanative is more Sun Tzu style: Know yourself, know your enemy and you will win a thousand battles.
Be water and flow to integrate enemies.

So, no, I don’t believe in free speech. If your words in public incite to hatred, violence and murder, you should be removed from the streets and locked up or deported.

In the moment you are preaching state sanctioned violence against a certain group of people.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Brutha

You don't want to restrict the right to drive cars because it leads to so many deaths but you want to restrict the right of freespeech that kills less people as a side effect in allowing spread of ideas of terrorists.

It is irresponsible and careless driving (usually under the influence of alcohol) that kills, and it is those factors that need to be, and indeed are, legislated upon.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In the moment you are preaching state sanctioned violence against a certain group of people.

No, I am not. I used the London bombings as an example. If someone is on the street, whether it is a friend, relative or neighbour, do you really think it is OK to let them spout forth a torrent of invective and encourage others to commit acts of violence? Taking the guy off the street with the correct amount of force required, is not state sanctioned violence – it’s called maintaining the peace.

[Brutha]

It is irresponsible and careless driving (usually under the influence of alcohol) that kills, and it is those factors that need to be, and indeed are, legislated upon.

That more or less the belief in magic laws.
Our drunken driving laws obviously aren't effective at prevent car accidents.
Forbidding cars from driving in cities and building rail instead would safe more lifes than got lost in terrorist attacks in the west in the last twenty years.

it’s called maintaining the peace.

Yeah, that the thing that those US soldiers in Iraq also try to do, etablishing peace.

Taking the guy off the street with the correct amount of force required, is not state sanctioned violence

If you imprision someone with the thread of weapons that I would label that as violence.
Whether it is the right amount of force or violence is a different issue.

do you really think it is OK to let them spout forth a torrent of invective and encourage others to commit acts of violence?

If someone directly commands other to illegal acts they could have been sentenced for doing so even before the London bombings.
The change lies in also emprisioning people for less clear cases.
Someone might support the freedom fighters/terrorists (depending on your perspective) in his home country.

[Barcs]

Displaying gratuitous violence is not art. And it is not all a one way flow - like there is this 'reality' out there, so we have to imitate it in the name of art.

That would be your opinion, however the entire art community would disagree. Simply displaying acts of violence might not be actual art (if that's what it is), but when it is put into a movie plot or video game story line, it is art by definition. If you don't believe in it, then don't watch it or let your kids watch it. Didn't you see my point about TV censorship? TV is censored so as long as you don't subscribe to premium channels, the chances of your kid seeing gratuitous violence while flipping channels on regular TV is very slim.

When I said ban all violent TV shows and computer games, I meant those that sell because of their high violence content - where the violence contained begins to have a morbid attraction for viewers. In most cases, the graphic display of violence is not integral to the plot, if the work has any artistic value.

Not true. So you think games like Grand Theft Auto 4 should be banned even though they are rated "mature"? Violence is an absolute must in that game and if you don't think that is art, then you really don't understand the concept of art and expression.

NEW YORK, Nov 28 (Reuters Life!) - Violence depicted on television, in films and video games raises the risk of aggressive behavior in adults and young viewers and poses a serious threat to public health, according to a new study.

This study has no credibility whatsoever.

After reviewing more than 50 years of research on the impact of violence in the media, L. Rowell Huesmann, of the University of Michigan, and his colleague Brad Bushman concluded that only smoking posed a greater danger.

I'd LOVE to see the official statistics on this. They are claiming that video games pose a greater risk than cancer???

Huesmann said children spend an average of three hours watching television each day and more than 60 percent of TV programs contain some violence, including 40 percent showing extreme violence.

What does this prove? It does not link violent TV to violent behavior at all! All this is essentially saying is that 60% of all TV programs contains some violence. This means that even if 1% of the program contains violence the whole thing is getting flagged. You do the math. 1% of 60%, three hours per day.. So he's only viewing something like 2% of all TV. So that's more like the chance of your kid viewing the exact violence is 2% of 1% of 60%... Basically very low, especially if you don't have HBO or any other of the hundreds of pay channels which is most likely included in their 60% above.

he findings, which are reported in the Journal of Adolescent Health, support earlier research which showed that children who watch violent television shows and who identify with the characters and believe they are real are more likely to be aggressive as adults.

HOW? These statistics prove nothing and demonstrate NO LINK WHATSOEVER to the previous study, which obviously wasn't cited and is probably based on
more bs statistics.

No, I am not. I used the London bombings as an example. If someone is on the street, whether it is a friend, relative or neighbour, do you really think it is OK to let them spout forth a torrent of invective and encourage others to commit acts of violence? Taking the guy off the street with the correct amount of force required, is not state sanctioned violence – it’s called maintaining the peace.

Free speech is free speech is free speech. Sometimes you have to say what the people do not want to hear. The people protesting obviously have a reason for doing so. Talking about something is much different than actually doing it. Hell, the KKK even gets their own rallies these days. The choice is ultimately up to the person as to whether or not to listen to these people, and most people do not. Not everyone is mindless drones, although sometimes it seems like it. This is a free speech argument however and has nothing to do with violence on TV causing violence in kids.

[Brutha]

Not true. So you think games like Grand Theft Auto 4 should be banned even though they are rated "mature"?

Playing Video Games Reduces Sex Differences In Spatial Skills makes the case that a lot of the advantages that boys have at math is due to playing more video games than girl. It is a good example for the case that there is a certain real value in a game like GTA4.
Before you ban it you should at least show that the negatives (increasing aggression) outway the postives (increasing math abilities).