Forum:A Rationalist Homeland?

< Index | General discussion

Now call me a pessimist, because in a sense I kinda am, but if anyone here has seen the way the world is now, and not just the most obvious signs (current Middle East strife, Ebola) one can sense some trouble ahead. It seems that the world at large, and especially this country (USA!) simply does not care for, if not outright hostile to, rationalism. So, suppose the best of the best in rational thinking, both here on this wiki and without, got together and forged our own Rationalist Homeland/State? Where freedom of thought can flourish and progression of science and technology can continue! And there'd be no need to constantly butt heads with the likes of, well, intellectual buttheads! I mean, there's no way a project like this could go wrong, right?

Okay, I know how this looks, and I admit I'm being pretty supercilious with this. So no need to take much of this too seriously, just me again blowing off.

Still, something to ponder about. Chair tater (talk) 10:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Most developed nations are much more receptive to rationalism than the United States IMO. We'd be better off just moving. Cliche, yes, but much more feasible and likely to work.

Of course, the main problem with both of our suggestions is that if no Americans are left who care about combating climate change, one of the biggest polluting countries in the world (don't remember offhand if it's US or China at #1 but we're clearly a huge part of the problem) is left in the hands of people who don't give a shit or even recognize that it's a problem. Abed Nadir (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So you want to found RS - Rationalist State. One problem is that all land that I am aware of is presently owned by other states. I'm assuming that you don't want to down the same route as IS so how would you get around this? I know that you say this isn't a serious suggestion but this would seem to be a rather large flaw in the concept.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest the Hutterite route. Or Seasteading. Brianpansky (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

“One problem is that all land that I am aware of is presently owned by other states.” Not true! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil 18.189.39.25 (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Happily, the solution for "get more land" is the same as one of the more practical solutions for global warming. We need to figure out how to persuade volcanoes to erupt. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have daydreams like this a lot. I try to keep them in perspective, but for a while I took some revolution ideas a bit more seriously than I should have. As for sensing "trouble ahead", keep in mind that the world has always been awful, this isn't anything new, but it is actually getting better over time. Now, for the idea of creating a "state", I'd suggest a more voluntary route, otherwise you've got to exhile the irrational people or something. I'm thinking something of an organization. Better than churches. There's a lot to say on the subject, for instance there already are some organizations for rationality. I guess the problem you/I see would have to be articulated before different proposed solutions could be compared. Brianpansky (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

doesn't everyone claim to be rational? Even bat shit insane nutjobs? A Rationalist homeland would just be filled with arrogant arseholes playing fallacy bingo. And it could never be a democracy. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A rationalist homeland, if done correctly and with time and long term thinking could become an Utopia.186.250.69.236 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

This all sounds somewhat cool and interesting by the way people are talking about it, and it would be cool to sort of have a single country that is populated by mostly agnostics/atheists, liberals/social democrats, and free-thinking people, but realistically, we all know that's not going to happen. This actually reminds me of that one movement to make New Hampshire a libertarian utopia. I think it was called the Free State initiative or something like that. Basically, the Libertarian Party asking libertarians to go to New Hampshire to try and turn it into some sort of libertarian safe haven. A lot of people signed on to it, actually. In my own personal opinion, this is quite unlikely, as it wouldn't be tolerated by the powers that be. Plus, any such nation would not be powerful enough to keep control over its own land. for example, if New Hampshire ever try to actually break off from the United States, in a sort of rebellion or revolution-like manner, it would immediately be crushed by the military.

Realistically, we should try and spread out rational thinkers all over the world to try and make a difference in the areas that need rationality the most. Taking all the rational people and putting them in one country it would actually be worse for the world as a whole, as all the other countries would be far worse off; they wouldn't have smart people that know what they're doing able to influence those in charge.

In short, we need to keep doing what we're doing right now, which is convincing people that our ideas are right, we know what we're doing, and we can be trusted with power.

On second thought, we already have a rationalist country: the Internet. 50.155.88.106 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Internet? A Rationalist country? As in, a place where people solve their problems in a rational way? Really? I mean, REALLY, bro?186.250.69.236 (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)