Coming Messiah

[AndyDufresne]

I can discount onefulfilled prophecy in a lifetime as coincidence, but not 25+ fulfilled prophecies in one lifetime. Especially when there had been zero Biblical prophecies for almost 2,000 years and then boom, bang, pop the fulfilled prophecies keep coming.

I found a list of fulfilled Baha'i prophecies, more than two or three dozen. This does't look like a coincidence: http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

The best part, is that prophecies come from many religions -- and this adds credence to the validity of the prophecies.

Guys, this isn't getting enough feedback. I found the ultimate truth on the interwebs.


--Andy

[pimpdave]

Theres no way to give comment karma or you'd get some. Instead you'll just have to be confident that people like me enjoyed it. Same as I know everyone loves Tea Party Death Squad threads.

[macbone]

Man, I really want to do a read-through of something like Chesterton's Orthodoxy. It'll probably be trolled all to hell, though, either that or just me posting nonsense over and over again.

In fairness, such a read-through should be accompanied by something like Dawkins' The God Delusion. Or maybe Ludwig Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity? Or Thus Spoke Zarathustra?

I'm not sure that the vast majority of humanity who disagree with your religious tenets are "trolls", dude.

Who said they were? Not me. =)

[notyou2]

I can discount onefulfilled prophecy in a lifetime as coincidence, but not 25+ fulfilled prophecies in one lifetime. Especially when there had been zero Biblical prophecies for almost 2,000 years and then boom, bang, pop the fulfilled prophecies keep coming.

I found a list of fulfilled Baha'i prophecies, more than two or three dozen. This does't look like a coincidence: http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/

The best part, is that prophecies come from many religions -- and this adds credence to the validity of the prophecies.

Guys, this isn't getting enough feedback. I found the ultimate truth on the interwebs.


--Andy

How can I give them all my money????

There must be a way.


Do tell Andy the Enlightened.

[macbone]

Here's one place to start: http://www.bahai.org/

Sorry, but it doesn't look like they have a donation link on the front page.

The Baha'i faith seems to be pretty decent, and they've been persecuted pretty heavily in Iran, where the faith originated.

[notyou2]

Here's one place to start: http://www.bahai.org/

Sorry, but it doesn't look like they have a donation link on the front page.

The Baha'i faith seems to be pretty decent, and they've been persecuted pretty heavily in Iran, where the faith originated.

Actually, it is a faith that appealed to me at one point. It seems different than many organized religions.

I really like their tenets:


the abandonment of all forms of prejudice
assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men
recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth
the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth
the realization of universal education
the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth
the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations
recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge

[mrswdk]

Is that a religion or the UN charter?

[notyou2]

It's a religion.

[AndyDufresne]

This is why they are the ultimate ones. In the future, I'll look for them as the world religion.


--Andy

[macbone]

Sounds like a pretty solid set of beliefs to me.

[patches70]

Here's one place to start: http://www.bahai.org/

Sorry, but it doesn't look like they have a donation link on the front page.

The Baha'i faith seems to be pretty decent, and they've been persecuted pretty heavily in Iran, where the faith originated.

Actually, it is a faith that appealed to me at one point. It seems different than many organized religions.

I really like their tenets:


the abandonment of all forms of prejudice
assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men
recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth
the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth
the realization of universal education
the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth
the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations
recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge

Why did you leave out their most important tenet of them all?

Not to mention that in the Bahá'í Faith sexual intercourse between anyone other than husband and wife is absolutely forbidden. Pre marital, extra marital and homosexual sex is forbidden.

Also, obligatory prayers, which isn't so bad I suppose. Even atheists like to have their mantras, and that's pretty much what a prayer is, a mantra. I'd even venture so far as to put forward that anyone who decides upon a positive mantra and faithfully recites it every single day of their lives will have a much happier life in the long run.
But I suppose it all depends on the individual.

But I do wonder why you focus only on the social tenets and ignore the spiritual tenets in your little list there. You can't have one without the other.

I'm also not really a fan of scheduled fasting. It defeats the purpose of fasting. Having a pre-specified time to fast is obeying the letter of mosaic law but ignoring the spirit of mosaic law. It's like obeying a secular law because you are told to obey rather than understanding the purpose of the law and why you should choose to comply without ever even needing to be told it's a law in the first place.
I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
- Aristotle
But meh, that's another topic I suppose.

[crispybits]

Baha'i faith claims are still faith claims, they are still not founded on evidence, they are still promulgating the idea that some people, without any evidence for saying so, are somehow closer to a divine "plan" than others (i.e. they have a structural clergy). When disagreements occur within that faith the less populous/politically powerful section are still excommunicated (not debated and compromised with as happens in real rational debates about contentious issues).

Whatever they teach that can be thought of as a reasonable and good thing for society can easily be believed without faith. I don't have faith and I believe that bigoted prejudice is bad for society, I believe that extremes of poverty and wealth are bad for society, I believe that education is good for society, I believe that the continuing pursuit of scientific truth is good for society. I believe all that without faith in any higher power.

All the Baha'i are doing is updating a dogma. As much as large sections of the bible are abominable to anyone who cares to read them, so the Baha'i tenets may be seen as equally ridiculous in another 2000 years time, so some of their pronouncements of what is moral or not may be seen to be equally ridiculous. They simply have a more up to date starting point, but they fall into the same philosophical hole. They've made it all look nice and fluffy, but dogma is dogma and faith is gullibility and all of the advances of humanity rest on rational progress (how many christians follow the "mixed cloths" rule any more? Do they ignore that rule because a religious authority says it doesn't matter or do they ignore that rule because rationality and reason say it doesn't make a smallest bit of difference to your moral standing?)

If someone really cares about our future survival, the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms. Not to start a new dogma with up to date tenets that match our current thinking because our current thinking is changing all the time, and any set of pronouncements set in stone at any point in time are outdated as soon as they are written. Society advances through discussion with itself encompassing evidence, consequences and reality, not by listening to what one group of people believe God says or does not say.

[macbone]

I don't have faith and I believe that bigoted prejudice is bad for society, I believe that extremes of poverty and wealth are bad for society, I believe that education is good for society, I believe that the continuing pursuit of scientific truth is good for society. I believe all that without faith in any higher power.

These are beliefs, Crispy. Good ones, too, but they're not demonstrable facts. Can you demonstrate that these things are real? How do you personally define "real"?

If someone really cares about our future survival, the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms.

Exactly. (This is also a belief, by the way, the idea that the best way for us to survive is to base society on what is real. We could just as easily base society on a lie, or a myth, or a fairy tale, or in belief in a god.) I know the point has been debated countless times in this and other forums, but the idea about what is real, what is true, is at the basis of pretty much every religion. If someone doesn't believe their faith is real, then that faith is ultimately hollow and completely worthless.

[notyou2]

Here's one place to start: http://www.bahai.org/

Sorry, but it doesn't look like they have a donation link on the front page.

The Baha'i faith seems to be pretty decent, and they've been persecuted pretty heavily in Iran, where the faith originated.

Actually, it is a faith that appealed to me at one point. It seems different than many organized religions.

I really like their tenets:


the abandonment of all forms of prejudice
assurance to women of full equality of opportunity with men
recognition of the unity and relativity of religious truth
the elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth
the realization of universal education
the responsibility of each person to independently search for truth
the establishment of a global commonwealth of nations
recognition that true religion is in harmony with reason and the pursuit of scientific knowledge

Why did you leave out their most important tenet of them all?

Not to mention that in the Bahá'í Faith sexual intercourse between anyone other than husband and wife is absolutely forbidden. Pre marital, extra marital and homosexual sex is forbidden.

Also, obligatory prayers, which isn't so bad I suppose. Even atheists like to have their mantras, and that's pretty much what a prayer is, a mantra. I'd even venture so far as to put forward that anyone who decides upon a positive mantra and faithfully recites it every single day of their lives will have a much happier life in the long run.
But I suppose it all depends on the individual.

But I do wonder why you focus only on the social tenets and ignore the spiritual tenets in your little list there. You can't have one without the other.

I'm also not really a fan of scheduled fasting. It defeats the purpose of fasting. Having a pre-specified time to fast is obeying the letter of mosaic law but ignoring the spirit of mosaic law. It's like obeying a secular law because you are told to obey rather than understanding the purpose of the law and why you should choose to comply without ever even needing to be told it's a law in the first place.
I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.”
- Aristotle
But meh, that's another topic I suppose.

I only went to the part of the site that tries to gain converts. They save the rest of that for when you become a follower. Too much too fast I expect.
Seriously, I did not purposely leave out anything, where I pulled that quote from did not list any others. However, I do respect them for the tenets that I listed.

[crispybits]

I don't have faith and I believe that bigoted prejudice is bad for society, I believe that extremes of poverty and wealth are bad for society, I believe that education is good for society, I believe that the continuing pursuit of scientific truth is good for society. I believe all that without faith in any higher power.

These are beliefs, Crispy. Good ones, too, but they're not demonstrable facts. Can you demonstrate that these things are real? How do you personally define "real"?

Can I demonstrate that extremes of poverty and wealth lead to unhealthy societies? Yes. Can I demonstrate that widespread bigoted prejudice is bad for society? Yes. Can I demonstrate that education of the populace is good for society? Yes. Can I demonstrate that scientific advancement is good for society? Yes. All of those things are real world claims and I can present real world evidence. In some cases people may disgaree wih me on one or more of my points, but the facts are available for us to have a rational, reasonable discussion based on evidence. Personally I don't try and define "real" in a philosophical sense because it's a rabbit-hole that leads o nonsense, I take a pragmatic standpoint that objective reality exists and we perceive it fairly reliably (though in a very limited way) through our senses.

If someone really cares about our future survival, the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms.

Exactly. (This is also a belief, by the way, the idea that the best way for us to survive is to base society on what is real. We could just as easily base society on a lie, or a myth, or a fairy tale, or in belief in a god.) I know the point has been debated countless times in this and other forums, but the idea about what is real, what is true, is at the basis of pretty much every religion. If someone doesn't believe their faith is real, then that faith is ultimately hollow and completely worthless.

It's a belief sure, but it's a belief that can be backed up by looking at societies that have prospered and societies that have fallen and looking for common trends and attributes. From around 800-1100 AD Baghdad was the intellectual centre of the world. Education, liberty, scientific advancement, prosperity, it had it all. When some muslim scholar (something like Al-Gazawi but don't crucify me if I got that slightly wrong) came along and used religious arguments to shut that down and that society started basing itself on dogma, intolerance and bullshit fairy tales the society suffered. Can you give me an example of a "benign lie" upon which we could base society that wouldn't leave society open to wasting resources, or shutting down productive avenues of thought and scientific advancement, or that isn't divisive in terms of "us and them" mentalities that all religions foster to some extent? Basing society on what we can demonstrate is true and have reasonable, rational discussions about isn't radical or left-field - it's common sense. Only religious propaganda says otherwise.

[AslanTheKing]

i read all pages of this thread,
its a funny thread
u guys will never know the answer
the messias is not coming, he is here
u dont believe in god? fine
the last day on your deathbed u will start believing
bless you
as soon your life is in real life shit, you will start praying ( for a change, will it help, u have nothing to loose- go for it)
bless you again
u go in circles, stop searching, accept it

[macbone]

Can you give me an example of a "benign lie" upon which we could base society that wouldn't leave society open to wasting resources, or shutting down productive avenues of thought and scientific advancement, or that isn't divisive in terms of "us and them" mentalities that all religions foster to some extent? Basing society on what we can demonstrate is true and have reasonable, rational discussions about isn't radical or left-field - it's common sense. Only religious propaganda says otherwise.

What I said was that society could be based on a lie and survive for generations to come, not that it would be the best basis for society.

What if we based society around the idea that the Earth was going to explode in 200 years, and we devoted all our energy and resources to building off-world transportation and orbital space-stations? This would probably lead to a number of important scientific and technological discoveries and it would unite the human race. It would have negative effects as well, however. More people would focus on technology and scientific research, so the arts would probably suffer, although a lot of great music, painting, and literature have been inspired by times of great conflict and social unease.

When the earth didn't explode in 200 years, reactions would be varied and lead to social unrest, but I predict that humanity as a whole would have made a great scientific leap forward as a result.

I'm sure I could think of others.

"It is humanity's duty to colonize other worlds."
"We should aim for a society where all wealth and power are shared equally among all people."
"Magic is real and will one day be rediscovered, but not if it is actively sought."

Two more:

"We are descendants of extraterrestrial beings, and one day we will find more clues among the stars about our ancestry." (Prometheus)
"Lennon, Starr, McCartney, and Harrison's greatness is subtle, and we should live our lives by emulating their songs." (Stolen from a friend in college who suggested basing society on the music of the Beatles)

[TA1LGUNN3R]

i read all pages of this thread,
its a funny thread
u guys will never know the answer
the messias is not coming, he is here
u dont believe in god? fine
the last day on your deathbed u will start believing
bless you
as soon your life is in real life shit, you will start praying ( for a change, will it help, u have nothing to loose- go for it)
bless you again
u go in circles, stop searching, accept it

hahaha. I scoffed. Is there a shorthand for "scoff out loud?" There should be when regarding posts like these.

-TG

[crispybits]

What I said was that society could be based on a lie and survive for generations to come, not that it would be the best basis for society.

What if we based society around the idea that the Earth was going to explode in 200 years, and we devoted all our energy and resources to building off-world transportation and orbital space-stations? This would probably lead to a number of important scientific and technological discoveries and it would unite the human race. It would have negative effects as well, however. More people would focus on technology and scientific research, so the arts would probably suffer, although a lot of great music, painting, and literature have been inspired by times of great conflict and social unease.

When the earth didn't explode in 200 years, reactions would be varied and lead to social unrest, but I predict that humanity as a whole would have made a great scientific leap forward as a result.

I'm sure I could think of others.

"It is humanity's duty to colonize other worlds."
"We should aim for a society where all wealth and power are shared equally among all people."
"Magic is real and will one day be rediscovered, but not if it is actively sought."

Two more:

"We are descendants of extraterrestrial beings, and one day we will find more clues among the stars about our ancestry." (Prometheus)
"Lennon, Starr, McCartney, and Harrison's greatness is subtle, and we should live our lives by emulating their songs." (Stolen from a friend in college who suggested basing society on the music of the Beatles)

Why would you look for anything other than the best way to make society propser? Why settle? OK there will be varying opinions on what constitutes "best", but what you're saying isn't that, what you're saying is that we could run society based on something we know isn't the "best" and still have it survive. I don't disagree, but what's the point of choosing a less optimal path? Why not strive for the best?

Your 200 year one is so easy to show damage from. We'd f*ck the environment to any level short of immediate life-ending catastrophe because this planet wouldn't be worth saving if it's going to explode anyway. It's doubtful (maybe impossible) to think we could send every human to another planet, so there would be some people chosen to go and some not, and how do you make that decision without causing wars, riots, social division, etc etc? Once we realise we're not going to be able to take everyone then there's no point in feeding starving kids in Africa or whatever, and people would suffer and die horrible deaths as a direct result of the lie. Saying it's just a bit of diversion from arts and stuff is underestimating the consequences in the extreme.

Colonise other worlds - that one is actually part of an objectively based truth. There is only so much space on Earth, and there is only so much time left while the Earth is habitable. If we want our society to survive we have to get off planet at some point. The key is the balance between that and all of our other priorities and that can be rationally and reasonably argued based on evidence.

Equalise wealth - we tried that one too in places and evidence and consequences have showed it doesnt work for arious reasons. It might work in the future but for now I personally think we should be limiting the extremes rather than trying to totally equalise. In future society may change enough we could go for equality but right now it doesn't work.

Magic is real but don't go looking - fine if you want to believe that, but by definition we can't waste anything or base anything on that because then we'd be looking. That's like saying we could base society on the hunt for invisible purple dragons that disappear if anyone tries to find them. it's a pointless thing to say.

We're aliens - see "colonise other worlds" - also it's a testable claim about reality that we can ascertain the truth of based on evidence.

Emulate the Beatles - Apart from there not being enough material in the Beatles catalogue to actually base society on, there are harmful things in there too if turned into societally influential dogma. They promote slavery: "It won't be long yeah, till I belong to you", demonising half the planet: "She's got the devil in her heart", xenophobia: "Get back to where you once belonged" (yes the quotes italicised there are a stretch, but then can you say that current religious dogmas aren't stretched and twisted to fit modern political agendas?)

[macbone]

Crispy, you asked, and I gave you examples. I'm sure if we sat down and talked about it, we could come up with thousands of more examples.

I actually do agree with you that we should base our society on what is real, but science fiction and fantasy are filled with societies that have existed for millenia, if not longer, based on all kinds of things - sentient computer programs, or the basis for the society in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."

However, stating that "the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms" is totally a belief, man. You can support it by examples, and you can run computer simulations to support it, but in the end, it's still a belief that can be challenged, not a fact that is empirically true.

[patches70]

Crispy, you asked, and I gave you examples. I'm sure if we sat down and talked about it, we could come up with thousands of more examples.

I actually do agree with you that we should base our society on what is real, but science fiction and fantasy are filled with societies that have existed for millenia, if not longer, based on all kinds of things - sentient computer programs, or the basis for the society in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."

However, stating that "the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms" is totally a belief, man. You can support it by examples, and you can run computer simulations to support it, but in the end, it's still a belief that can be challenged, not a fact that is empirically true.

And the one thing that Crispy doesn't consider, that even if we had a society "Based on what is real", we all still have to submit to an authority.

Submit. To a higher power. Be it government, philosophers, Kings, Queens, the bayonet, scientist or whatever. What happens to those who do not submit?

Same thing to those who do not submit to "God" in a Theocracy. Violence is used upon them.

Now, if we want to talk about something real, who is going to be the authority in this supposed "real" society, Crispy?
And what do you do with those who disagree, which is inevitable. Who decides what is right and how do you enforce that on everyone?

We should be able to easily see the dystopian society that beomse instead of the ideal imagined by Crispy (as well as from anyone proposing the "ideal".) It only works if we are ants and not men.
IMO

[mrswdk]

At least this new society would be able to shed itself of the 15th century notion of 'morality'. Our world's Disney-based laws and legal systems could be re-worked to more accurately reflect the world in which we live.

[patches70]

At least this new society would be able to shed itself of the 15th century notion of 'morality'. Our world's Disney-based laws and legal systems could be re-worked to more accurately reflect the world in which we live.

If you say so, though history shows something different. Law will be applied like it always has, applied to the lower classes while the elites enjoy exceptions.

It's all to do with submitting, be it to God as religions require or submit to men which secularism requires.
It's not a problem until those speaking for the authority abuse that power, which always happens.
You have a preacher who speaks for God or a President or a council or a committee, all tell everyone else what to do. So long as people are ok with that it's fine, but when it comes to telling people what they don't or won't do, then the problems start.

The religious zealots stone those to death, the secular authorities toss those into prison and if those resist are then shot. In the end it's all the same, those who refuse to submit will be dealt with violently. And those making the decisions are men who are as fallible as anyone else.

So there can be no perfect society because that would require perfect mankind. So step up and declare your perfection and thus the authority to truly lead righteously.

That's why submitting to an infallible God isn't so bad, it's just that there are men who supposedly speak for that infallible God and muck things up pretty badly. But even to the infallible God there will be those who still reject.

There are no laws, no society, not belief system that there will be none that dissent. And what we do to those who dissent is always the same practice. Violence.

I think it just makes people feel better about their own belief systems by dissing other people's belief systems. There is really no big difference, they are all belief systems interpreted by fallible human beings. This always results in cries of joy for some, tears of pain for others.

It all depends on who it is you want to have the tears flow. Who decides who's cow gets skinned? And there in is the problem, because there is always people who don't want their cow skinned for another's benefit. So instead we try to convince people that it's in their own best interests to cut their own throats. It never works for long.

All we can do is try to get through life the best we can with the limited knowledge and immense fallibility we all suffer in. It doesn't help when everyone is yelling at everyone else- "You're doing it wrong!".

[crispybits]

Crispy, you asked, and I gave you examples. I'm sure if we sat down and talked about it, we could come up with thousands of more examples.

I actually do agree with you that we should base our society on what is real, but science fiction and fantasy are filled with societies that have existed for millenia, if not longer, based on all kinds of things - sentient computer programs, or the basis for the society in "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas."

However, stating that "the way to give us the best chance for generations and centuries to come is to base society on what we can demonstrate is real and hold discussions and debates on those terms" is totally a belief, man. You can support it by examples, and you can run computer simulations to support it, but in the end, it's still a belief that can be challenged, not a fact that is empirically true.

I asked for examples of benign lies we could base society on that would lead to wasted resources, dogmatic restrictions on technological advancements or divisions in society based on that lie. I simply pointed out that none of the examples you provided met that criteria.

I didn't say we can't use thought experiements or symbolism in the discussion. I agree that they can be very useful tools indeed.

Society working best when we base it on what is demonstrably real is a belief but it's also a contention that we can evaluate. Unfortunately human history doesn't throw up too many examples of where a society based on dogma either directly replaces or is replaced by a society based on the totally free marketplace of ideas (being that extremes of facism and communism that do sideline religion to a large extent also put in place some form of nationalist dogma instead) but the examples we do have that get close to those principles generally show that societies where dogmatic influences are marginalised also tend to be more progressive and prosperous (there will always be exceptions). I wouldn't claim that I'm 100% definitely right on that point, there may well be some forms of benign lie that could aid society (the caveat is that society would generally have to be unaware of the self-deception which is where the trickiest problems arise), but it's a point we can discuss and debate.

Dogmatic assertions don't allow discussion or debate, and any flaws built into the dogma becomes structurally inbuilt into the society. Rejection of faith base dogma is the only way to avoid this structural flaw. It has other consequences, and some of them will be negative, but overall I believe that it is less harmful to society over the course of long periods of time than any dogmatic system.

[crispybits]

At least this new society would be able to shed itself of the 15th century notion of 'morality'. Our world's Disney-based laws and legal systems could be re-worked to more accurately reflect the world in which we live.

If you say so, though history shows something different. Law will be applied like it always has, applied to the lower classes while the elites enjoy exceptions.

It's all to do with submitting, be it to God as religions require or submit to men which secularism requires.
It's not a problem until those speaking for the authority abuse that power, which always happens.
You have a preacher who speaks for God or a President or a council or a committee, all tell everyone else what to do. So long as people are ok with that it's fine, but when it comes to telling people what they don't or won't do, then the problems start.

The religious zealots stone those to death, the secular authorities toss those into prison and if those resist are then shot. In the end it's all the same, those who refuse to submit will be dealt with violently. And those making the decisions are men who are as fallible as anyone else.

So there can be no perfect society because that would require perfect mankind. So step up and declare your perfection and thus the authority to truly lead righteously.

That's why submitting to an infallible God isn't so bad, it's just that there are men who supposedly speak for that infallible God and muck things up pretty badly. But even to the infallible God there will be those who still reject.

There are no laws, no society, not belief system that there will be none that dissent. And what we do to those who dissent is always the same practice. Violence.

I think it just makes people feel better about their own belief systems by dissing other people's belief systems. There is really no big difference, they are all belief systems interpreted by fallible human beings. This always results in cries of joy for some, tears of pain for others.

It all depends on who it is you want to have the tears flow. Who decides who's cow gets skinned? And there in is the problem, because there is always people who don't want their cow skinned for another's benefit. So instead we try to convince people that it's in their own best interests to cut their own throats. It never works for long.

All we can do is try to get through life the best we can with the limited knowledge and immense fallibility we all suffer in. It doesn't help when everyone is yelling at everyone else- "You're doing it wrong!".

To a large extent I agree, but there is also the fact that by making society as transparent and accountable at every level as possible we can minimise human corruption and fallibility. Of course this doesn't work until we have a single human society rather than a collection of nation states with their own levels of self-interest etc, and I'm not even going to attemtp to propose how we could get there because I think it's beyond us right now.

I think there is an optimal (note: optimal, not perfect) society model. That is, one where based on everything we can demonstrate and measure the best possible life is given to everyone in that society. I don't think we know what that is yet, and even if we did thanks to human corruption, greed and other failings I think we're a very long way away from it right now to the point where I don't think anyone alive now will ever witness it during their lifetime. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, and once we accept that it does exist then we have to make whatever small steps we can to work towards it. There's a million problems along the way, but maybe we can solve one today, and another next week, and by the time our great great great great great grandchildren are born we'll be down to just half a million problems. or we can sit back and say "impossible" and when that time comes we'll still have a million problems to solve.