We are entering in to such a different era than the one that just passed. Times are changing and I think it's time to work on a bond stronger than the pitiful compilation of nations as the U.N. We need to start looking world unity as soon enough we are going to leave this planet to search for life else where, and when that time comes I want it to be a race of humans from earth starting the first colony, not america starting one here and russia going over to that section of space over there.
Some times I wonder what the world would be like if Hitler had taken over. Years of toil and striffe under an evil dictator would have been sure, but after the sucsession of evil men finally depleted, we would have been whole. Not whole really, not with so many innocent people dead, no it would have taken a long time to recover, but we would be united. We could establish a central government, with the full military, scientific, and cultural communities of the world working together to solve the problems we are facing.
What will happen in the years to come. The shock of Hitler is wearing away, England has settled into it's lands, Rome is long forgotten as with Alexander the great and the Persian empire, all long fallen into the dust of the past. What nation will rise to the challange of uniting this ever shrinking world.
And what of the moral complications? Should someone take over the world. I dont know about you but I have met very few people who doubt there will be a world war three, and the stakes in the will be all the higher. I for one, even if it means a dictatorship untill there can be a rebellion, feel that someone needs to conquer the world. There are to many issues and to much countries can share with one another to remain so undeniably seperate.
So what do you think?
Do you think America( or anyone for that matter) should take over the world?
How should world unity be achevied?
Will super hero movies ever be good again?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
this kind of change is possible, it is just a matter of how much you are willing to give up to get there?
I agree.
I'd rather live "free" as I am now.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
But how long can we sacrifice unity for the sake of freedom. eventually someone is going to force us under a world wide dictatorship, at least thats how I feel.
But even if we were to try to do it peacefully, many people would still have to give up a lot of rights to make it so. I'm not sure that the sacrifice would be any less trying to unite the world peacefully, and I feel it would take a lot longer to convince political leaders to bend one way or another than to just simply kill them.
But how long can we sacrifice unity for the sake of freedom. eventually someone is going to force us under a world wide dictatorship, at least thats how I feel.
Eventually, we're all gonna die, too. Does that mean that we should all just lie down in our beds all day and wait for it to come?
But even if we were to try to do it peacefully, many people would still have to give up a lot of rights to make it so.
I'm not giving up my rights. Wasn't there some famous quote... "Give me Liberty or Give Me Death?" Yeah. That's how I feel.
I feel it would take a lot longer to convince political leaders to bend one way or another than to just simply kill them.
Cool. Let's kill everyone for peace. Geeze... your Hitler analogy was very fitting.
----
You are the Voice of the Childwen of the Revowution! [Toulouse, Moulin Rouge]
Eventually, we're all gonna die, too. Does that mean that we should all just lie down in our beds all day and wait for it to come?
No, I didn't mean to send that message. I'm saying that just living your day to day life, while that's your right to do, might as well be laying down and and giving up because there is too much facing the world today to just live our day to day lives anymore.
Thats not true.
We have to live our day to day lives because that's how the world keeps on spinin'. But we need to be working together to one overall goal. We need to start changing our thinking from just global to our solar system, our galaxy even. We need to change from thinking ourselves as only American and only Europeans to humans, earthenians or whatever.
Cool. Let's kill everyone for peace. Geeze... your Hitler analogy was very fitting.
I want to stop war with war, fight fire with fire to put it bluntly, and that sounds terrible even to my ears. I dont agree with Hitlers cruelty, I detest it. But what would you have us do?
I dont know if you really care, many people feel that doing what people do is what needs to be done, and in order for any change to happen there needs to be people that the change is going to benifet or hurt, so you are doing your part. But if you feel that my method of simply taking over the world isn't worth it, then how do you propose we unite.
If there is a better, peaceful way to do it then I would gladly do it that way, If there were a workable idea, not just an ideal way of changing the world into something workable, like a new block of clay, but an actual way to do it, then post it and we can talk over the details.
There may be a peaceful way. It could start right here. Everyone knows the answer. Everyone knows the way. It's a simple matter to convince someone of something they already believe. It might be called preaching to the choir.
In any event, I'm not sure whether a dictatorship is the solution. It certainly is the most viable of the Old Ways, but there could be a new way. Let's consider what the internet has done to revolutionize communication. How people from all corners of the globe are now able to communicate *instantaneously* (let's ignore the millisecond lag, please). At the height of Rome it took 7 days to get a message from one end to the other. The infrastructure is here.
The problem might be reliance on a leader. Why would we need one? Instead, autonomous bodies are the better goal. I love the point of your post. You're brilliant.
It's our world. Let's do this right.
I think it would be extremely hard for world unity to occur, just because every country wants to be the best it seems. Competition seems to drive societies, and until that is gone, how can we have world unity? It's a sad thing really.
Competition seems to drive societies, and until that is gone,
how can we have world unity?
Thats the point of this blog. unity can come at the price of blood, but is it worth it.
I, too, feel as though there are some headstrong countries that would not fully commit to a united world in fear that other countries would hold back, that is why I feel it will come to war, if it comes at all.
It's impossible for a single country to separate itself from the rest of the world. The goal of a given country is really the same as any other country. We're all here. There are limited resources. We're pretty much in the same boat. This is the primarily important realization.
There should be no such thing as 'Chinese' interests or 'Russian' interests or 'American' interests. The only thing that makes sense is 'humanity'. We can either kill each other over nothing (i.e. scarce resources) or work together to ensure mutual survival. How difficult is it?
That sounds very scary to me. I mean, everyone dreams of whirled peas, so to speak :), but I'm not so sure this would do the trick. But this is intriguing...I suppose it's a matter of cost vs. benefit! But you would opt for another total war, a World War III, in order to get to that point of peace? That's a little paradoxical, don't you think? Well actually that's a dumb question--I bet you already know that! I'm sure you've already thought through the costs vs. benefits.
But still...Are you sure it would be worth the horrors of war-- if at the end only a handful of people are still left standing?--Think about the weapons of mass destruction out there that have the capacity to "wipe out everyone on the face of the earth" if it comes to that point. I have to be honest, its a good idea to throw out there, but I'm not sure it's the best way to go about it.
Here's the question to ask-- If you had the power to instigate World War III in the name of world peace and unity in the end for all eternity, would you do it? An eternity of peace is a long time...sounds like more than a fair trade...but is it how God wants us to solve our problems? And should we stoop to that level? I doubt that would ever even end in peace--maybe unity in the sense that one person enslaves all others of the earth, but then I don't think I want unity! I think we can do better than that!
I believe slowly and surely we will get there. Perseverence. Dedication. There are a lot of good people in this world. Soon enough there will be so many that those who resist peace and unity will just have to surrender to the way the world is supposed to be!
Good, this is a perfect example of a progressive conversation. Not harsh, trying to bring people down, but adding to the conversation trying to look at the "argument" from the other side.
But you would opt for another total war, a World War III, in order to get to that point of peace?
Honestly no, if I had a way of enacting world peace in a timely matter without an all out war I would. I believe we are entering an age where the old hates of the past are starting to be forgotten and we can work together, but how long do you think it will be before that actually happens?
I fear war may be a fast acting way to start peace, and I think we need to start working together fast.
Are you sure it would be worth the horrors of war-- if at the end only a handful of people are still left standing?
I think end all it would be worth it if it works.
Think about the weapons of mass destruction out there that have the capacity to "wipe out everyone on the face of the earth" if it comes to that point.
If it came to WMD then there would be nothing left to save, I dont believe there is a country out there that would trade existance of the human race for there soil they guard. I think that nukes will remain as dangerously usless as they are untill we get to innerplanetary wars.
If you had the power to instigate World War III in the name of world peace and unity in the end for all eternity, would you do it?
I've got a question in return. If there were a problem that only being united could solve(overpopulation, the asteroid, world hunger, cold fusion) would you start a war to become unified before it was to late to solve those problems?
but is it how God wants us to solve our problems?
I'm pretty convinced that god enjoys watching how we solve our problems, and that want is a term that doesn't really apply to an omnipotent being.
And should we stoop to that level? I doubt that would ever even end in peace--maybe unity in the sense that one person enslaves all others of the earth, but then I don't think I want unity!
Your right, the direct result would be a dictatorship. The only way to make it immediatly effective would be to have a just dictator from the start, making the changes and enacting the laws that would allow the new union to grow. More likely, we would spend quite a few years under brutal dictatorship untill a strong enough rebllion could be formed.
Lucky enough the world would cease to have boarders and everyone could be united under a cause and hopefully that unity would last past overthrowing the dictatorship.
There are a lot of good people in this world. Soon enough there will be so many that those who resist peace and unity will just have to surrender to the way the world is supposed to be!
Good people just do what's right, I fear all good people will continue in day to day life and there will not be enough working for change.
You sound like you believe in god. I am not well educated in the scripture but I believe it talks about the christians being persecuted and shunded before god makes it back. I don't think that it's going to get any better, I fear it will only get worse.
Don't the scriptures also hold the 'One World Government' as a sign of the End of Days? Let's take it as metaphor for the End of Days (That Sucked).
I believe we don't have to reach such abysmal lows to get to where we want to be. There are enough people, reasonable people, who can unite and overthrow the current system. Now's the time.
I've thought about that. They way things are going( global warming, the asteroid, christians being shunned for doing christian things, ect.)Ii think the end is comming no matter what we do, which is why I feel we need to act fast.
If time and resources were taken away from both the things that aren't helping and the things that are actively destroying us, then it could be spent on finding solutions to these problems. The more we know about what could destroy us, the better we're able to find solutions for survival.
The risk of asteroids can be mitigated by early detection and ideas to destroy them or alter their trajectory. Science is beautiful :-)
As for global warming, there may not be anything we can do about it. But what we could do is come up with a way to live despite climate conditions. Artifical living conditions could be engineered so that we could exist no matter what goes on outside. Imagine what ammounts to a 'bomb shelter' complete with plants and an ecosystem that is capable of indefinitely sustaining life. Hell, this kind of structure could even be placed on another planet for means of colonization.
Our intelligence helps us outrun destruction... when it's not turned toward self-destruction :-)
Yes, good points. I was refering to the apocolypse, which(if you believe that sort of thing) is inevitable. I liked the part about changing what we spend money on, I really think we could figure out all the problems facing us if we worked together. And the piece about not stoping but living with global warming, my thoughts exactly.
Right. The Apocalypse is a different issue entirely. There may not be much we could do if the univese would reverse and suck itself into a 'big crunch'. There may be some sort of defect in space-time that make our universe... become uninhabitable. That's extreme...
As for the 'typical' end of the world things... I'm pretty sure we can work together on avoiding those. But if this big A does come, then at least we died trying :-) ...not bickering and fighting and engineering our own destruction.
Unity seems to be an "out there" idea nowadays....but if you think about it, it could be possible, we'd all just have to agree to consciously strive for it.
individually, within groups, states, countries, nations, international, the world...
-Amanda-
Check out my blog
This really does need to happen, it's just a matter of how.
The how is up to us. It's what we're doing now. We *are* the future. The people who have created these problems are dead and dying. We're inheriting the vestiges of their broken social models.
It's painfully simple. It takes desire. Desire and a leader. Desire and leader*s*.
The people who have created these problems are dead and dying.
This is a great point. The only way to acheive peace peacefully is to have everyone agree that's what we want. Someone made a comment about how the internet links us, so if we wanted to unite then doing it peacefully is plausible now. I fear that some countries may not commit fully though, and that would cause the whole idea to fall apart.
If one country withheld info or weapons then all countries would become suspicious of each other. The beauty of dominating everyone is that it eliminates their army and reasources and makes it so they cannot survive with unifying(if that's a word).
I have been thinking of a way thw world could be in unity. I can't think of one.
Reason being, it isn't possible.
And I am an optimist, but I have more of a realist view on this I think. I am still thinking about it though, a very interesting blog. Good job!
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
That's odd... I'm a pessimist and I think there's a way.
Actually... it's not so much that there *is* a way... it's that it's the *only* way :-)
People say that it's not possible, acting like they can't do anything about it. Hello, we're all the key to getting it accomplished...
-Amanda-
please vote for me on brickfish
I would really appreciate it!
Yeah... it's kinda odd. Social structures are made of people. It takes people to change them.
I know I can do something about it. I know that most the people on this website can do something about it. What about the other billions of people though? I doubt we can make everybody work together and unite.
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
I bet we could.
Il y a de beau temps avant la pluie aussi. Et plus, qui n'aime pas un peu de pluie?
Beaucoup de gens n'aiment pas un peu de pluie. Mais vous comprenez le proverbe?
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
Ouais, je le comprends. Je was being un peu facetious :-) Désolé
But seriously, here's the plan:
1. Determine a definite, tangible problem which we have a chance of influencing
2. Draft a solution to said problem
3. Design the most effective way to implement said solution
4. Decide the best way to spread the word (and key places/people/milestones)
I'd recommend starting small in order to basically guarantee success. This will ensure recognition and coverage. Use this momentum to tackle a larger problem. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Who's game?
(et je comprends qu'il y a des gens qui dire qu'ils n'aiment pas la pluie, mais 'pluie' n'est pas simplement 'pluie'... il y a des types differentes. Chaude, froide... dure, doux... et cetera. nous avons besoin de pluie... il faut aimer la pluie au moins un peu ;-)
Speaking french has nothing to do with my part.
Done. :]
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
To each according to his/her/its ability...
Maybe you have an idea for an initial problem to solve?
Here's some ideas to get the process started:
rehabbing a neighborhood
adopt-a-panda
methods to ensure food/shelter cost-effectively (a blueprint)
ending a war (a bonus challenge, but definitely conceivable)
With a little brainstorming, I know we could decide on something and even work through most of a solution. Plus, consider the people on this site. Each person knows other people. Those people know people, etc. We should be able to locate an 'expert' to help with anything we need.
Seems worthwhile.
rehabbing a neighborhood
adopt-a-panda
I understand the need to start small but this might not really impact much. We should start with creating a network of individuals willing to make change. We might start with a forum, or maybe do some research to find whether or not an organization already exists with the same goals.
I may be an absolutly wonderful person but even just two people can't change much without substantial resources or a solid moral backing. Saving the world is a great motivation but it's too broad a statment to get many people behind.
We should start with a purpose like forsaking our countries in favor of being earth and try to creat some sort of website or forum that broadcasts internationaly.
I'm sorry but I'm at work extreamly tired and basicly useless most days except to comment or jot down a quick blog so I wont be much use today at least, but if there is anything I can do I would love to continue this conversation. I will check on this blog everyday I get near a computer and try to do some research to see if I cant find such an organization.
I wonder what the rotary club would have to say about something like this?
Absolutely brilliant! It's not every day I get accused of ideas that are too small to matter... it's refreshing :-) And I'm glad that someone has recommended the 'forsaking of countries' idea. That's brilliant. That actually fits all the requirements for something worth doing... I'd second that as the 'project' that we launch. It's not unachievable, it's definite, it brings tangible benefit... it's perfect.
Yes, it can't be accomplished with two people... but it can certainly be started.
Your idea of finding a pre-existing movement is great as well. The Rotary Club would be a great place to start. They're international. They have influential members, and it wouldn't be going too far out on a limb to say that every city has at least one. They can be the first step (once we've done our preparations). Maybe another option would be Oprah? She's doing that A New World class right now, so the timing may be right.
I'll make a blog to start off the discussion (http://www.progressiveu.org/025129-great-unification-experiment). See ya there?
Well I would watch the trial run. If the practice game works, I will join. So keep me updated!
Après la pluie le beau temps. ♥
Check out my latest blog! :]
Some times I wonder what the world would be like if Hitler had taken over. Years of toil and striffe under an evil dictator would have been sure, but after the sucsession of evil men finally depleted, we would have been whole.
I can't believe how horribly misguided this blog entry is. It is so far in the wrong direction that it is mind-boggling.
To answer your question, if Hitler had managed to take control of the earth, the Jewish race would have been exterminated. But then it would not have stopped. Hitler made it perfectly clear that he held black people in even lower regard then Jews. And he was not particularly fond of gypseys. And his treatment of Russian prisoners of war gives us a pretty good hint as to how he felt about Russians. He did make an alliance with the Japanese but my guess is that once he managed to get control of the world, his clearly stated preference for the Aryian Race would have given him little compunction against sending anybody with slanty eyes to his gas chamber. He sure did not object to the Japanese' horrible treatment of the Chinese.
What exactly would be so great about world government? There is not a single national government anywhere in the world that can be said to be doing a really stellar job. The closest things we have yet seen emerge to a world government would be the EU Regionional Government and the United Nations. The United Nations is essentially a dicatators club and is rife with corruption and totally ineffective. The EU Government is essentially a huge bureacracy that the Europeans obviously distrust enough so that every time they try to consolidate their power with a Constitution it gets resoundingly rejected.
The best government tends to be the least government and I guarantee that is not what you are going to get from a world government. A world government could only impose its will by force because people would resoundling reject it. The best government also tends to be local government because local government is best able to understand and respond to the needs of the populace and is the easiest to change when they fail to meet those needs.
Thanks but no thanks! I'll pass on the world government.
The problem comes with your understanding of government. Certainly there aren't many great examples in the world. Certainly there weren't many great examples in the past, either. This means just one thing: we've had so many great examples to learn from in creating a better one. Remember, the US was referred to as an experiment. With any experiment comes learning. We've learned a lot of good and bad things.
You're right that a big, bulky government would constrict and basically kill the world. This isn't the way to do it, then. We take your fears and reverse them... we even have a good place to find a model: the internet. Consider it: never before have we seen a system which is so scalable, distributed, and decentralized. A simple wire (or even radio signal) connects a single individual to the rest of the world. This was never possible before. The best we could do was TV/radio, which is able to reach anyone, but unable to have those people communicate back.
It would be possible to set up incredibly efficient, locally-operated governments (servers/terminals) then connect them to each other (similar to the internet). This would effectively unify the world without having a centralized authority. There's no need for a centralized authority. There is just the need for things to run well at the various levels of relevance. Let the villages be free. Let countries cease to exist. Let the free flow of people, information, and resources begin.
Change is going to happen, whether you like it or not. You can either fight and whimper as it sweeps by you, turning into something you'd rather not see, or you can be one of those fighting for it to occur in the most beneficial way. It's too late to go back. Current powers are expanding. Watch from the sidelines as they self-destruct, or be an architect for the new, better model.
The original poster wasn't off base. His question is legitimate. And his reasoning, if you can get past your emotional bias, is sound. A single person could have unified the world. Under Hitler, it would have spelled disaster for minorities, but it would have accomplished unification. It's possible to have the power of unification without the need for bloodshed and bigotry, however. Lessons can be learned from Hitler. Both what to do and what not to do. Get over it.
I've gotta agree with jackbenimble on this one. Did you never study the Soviet Union...? A bunch of ethnic groups being run by another that didn't have their best interests in mind, and as soon as the dictatorship let up, they all separated. That's exactly what would have happened if Hitler had run the world, except that he would have exterminated likely billions of people in the process. That's certainly a way to achieve unity... kill anyone who might possibly disagree with you...
We have a long way to go before we can reach unity, and the first thing that needs to happen is an understanding and RESPECT of different cultures. Putting everyone under the control of a single government won't work, because there are too many people with too many different interests in mind. It's hard enough in the US, where you have one half fighting over water rights, one part wanting to dispose of nuclear waste where another group lives ('oh, they're not that important....'), etc, etc. Imagine trying to deal with the interests of the Brazilians, the Iranians, the Israelis, the Chinese, and the French all at the same time.
Besides that, we're already incredibly divided... there's not a universal language, and until everyone can speak a universal language (whether English or something made up like Esperanto), we're not going to achieve unity. Until we can reconcile the interests of the rich with the interests of the poor, we're not going to achieve unity. Even a World War III is not going to bring this type of unity around.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I think your post came in before mine; some of what you're talking about was addressed in my response to him. There's no disagreeing with you guys about competing interests and the damaging effects of a government that is out of touch with its people. This is what we're solving.
There's no need to interfere with the interests of the Brazilians, Iranians, or any other localized group of people. They know their problems. Let them seek solutions. We simply need a framework that supports this. That lets others be sought without control being forced on the seekers.
Once again, and I'll probably have to repeat this more times than anything else: we're not proposing to take what doesn't work currently and make it bigger. We're proposing to take a step back and reevaluate the needs of people. This is not about control. This is about cooperation.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. In order to have a global unity... a single government, that government has to look at the interests of everyone. You can't let the Brazilians do their thing if it interferes with the Peruvians doing their thing. And without effective communication, it cannot happen. Period.
You're not solving it by making some big giant war and putting everyone under a dictator. That's about the worse thing you could do, even if that 'dictator' was America. This is a process that CANNOT happen overnight... it takes time, and we are slowly working towards it.
Nothing that currently exists would work on a worldwide scale, which means that anything you implement now will not work.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I wasn't proposing a giant war or dictatorial rule :-) It's one way to try and go about it, but it's not the optimal way.
There wouldn't really have to be a centralized governing body. Each locale would maintain its own government. Solicitation to other locales would allow third party arbitration for disputes that couldn't be solved locally.
The who point here is that there wouldn't be a 'centralized government' that needed to oversee local operations. There would be autonomous communities and 'governance' would exist simply as a framework to facilitate communication and provide a means to seek and offer help. It'd be more like a network than a government as is seen today. An association.
Closer?
It's nice to see my thoughts actually put into words. I have not had a chance to write or even talk it out with anyone so it was hard to be able to argue over it but you do an amazing job of finding the meaning in what I've said. I'm glad to know my blog was well defended by someone who knows what I'm talking about while I've been gone.
It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it ;-)
Just glad to be able to do it justice. It's a good cause.
YOU may not have suggested a world war or dictator rule, but the BLOG did. And I'm responding to this blog, not yours.
As I have said again and again, the movement for a huge change in the global system will not work. It will take time, and it has to work at the individual level if you want to achieve something on the global level. In order to have unity, you need to have tolerance, and there are plenty of people across the world that do not have tolerance for one thing or another. Not to mention, you'd have to remove a number of governments, as is demonstrated by the Chinese government's opposition to those religious individuals in Tibet.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Sure, it's only possible at the individual level. The 'global system' is nothing more than a bunch of individuals.
I'd tend to agree with the tolerance thing, though.
A government with such violations of human rights has forfeited its right to existence. You think that simply allowing it to exist and slowly dissipate is the correct action?
Sometimes violence is the answer.
I feel that as the years go on the hate is being breeded out of scociety. I dont know how the rest of the world is doing in this reguard. I do think, however, that soon enough all of these old hates are going to die out and that a severe change such as a global "dictatorship", since that is the only way to have the control needed to sustain the system, would be a motivation to finally throw off those old hates.
After everyone came together a rebellion could be formed that would hopefully overthrow the dictatorship and bond the people against a common enemy. Then they could work together. Since the dictatorship had fallen all their governments, they would not have their own respective "countries"(government wise) to go back to. So they could build one from the ashes of the dictatorship and establish a better form of government. The set-up tehnetdauncgkled( what is that anyway) had actualy sounded workable.
It may even be possible for a temporary dictator to provide the leadership and support necessary. It's said that power will corrupt, but this doesn't have to be the case. I believe a leader could do their job for the right reason and not attach themselves to the power. Some would disagree, but I know it could happen.
One way to go about this would be a series of leaders stepping up throughout the world to overthrow the current powers. With just a little coordination, it would be possible to achieve the effect.
Instead of a 'World War' as we've tended to view them, the next evolution is most likely a 'World Civil War'. That is, a war not between countries but between factions in any geographical region. This would be the most effective way to accomplish an overthrow. It also takes care of the very real problem of intolerance. Yes, it does seem somewhat hypocritical to be 'intolerant of intolerance', but it's actually a necessity. This ideal of passive resistance and waiting for hatred to die will surely strangle humanity. The sources of intolerance and continued hatred need to be dealt with directly. This comes either through education/reform (if possible) or extermination. It's like a diseased limb which threatens to infect the rest of the body... it's unfortunate, but its continuation would be even more unfortunate.
I'm not an advocate for war or general exterminations... but, and I cringe to say this, to keep a fire from spreading it's sometimes necessary to burn the surrounding area to keep it from spreading. While, in theory, all life is important, the kinds of lives which are perpetuating ignorance and hatred are probably more expendable. And, yes, this belief could be viewed as another form of 'hatred' or 'ignorance', but I hope it's not seen that way. I mean well ;-)
(and the name... think 'interwoven')