TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Can't we all just get along?

In order for human evolution to progress we need to have a sense of community. We need to open our minds and open our hearts to everyone on the planet. Accept all religions (or none at all), accept all cultures, accept all life forms, accept all ideas, allow a global community to grow and prosper. We have the technology. We can build this.

Share:
  • Jun 24 2013: "There is far too much of this conflict, between races, nations, and religions to think that we can at this time in our history "all just get along." At best, we can reduce and manage the conflicts." Spot on!

    People put too much emphasis on things that shouldn't matter, thousands of years ago in an un-educated society it's understandable, but today it is worng. People fight and people die for their country, but what is a country other than a line on a map?

    It's strange to me that people have such strong feelings over things that to me are so unimportant. It shouldn't matter what race you are, what country your from, what beliefes you hold, what clothes you wear, what music you listen to. However the problem lies with society, children are not born racist or prejudice, have you ever seen a todler act this way?? No, it is what they have been taught and what they have seen. You cannot teach an old dog new tricks, but you can educate the younger generations and teach them to be better people.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: No. Too many people want what I do not want and do not want what I want.
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: G'day Ben

    No because that would mean we would truly become responsible intelligent caring human beings & we can't have that can we!!

    All we have to do is accept our differences as just differences not opposing polarities or modes of thought.

    Love
    Mathew
  • thumb
    Jun 24 2013: What other animals "get along." Humans are not the only animal that kills its own kind, but we are the only animal that kills over abstract ideas and beliefs.

    One of the unique traits of humans is that we have created culture. We have always had a sense of community, as we are social creature, but this does not mean that we have always gotten along.
    There is nothing to indicate that we can all get along, since we all have differences, and they lead to conflict, even on an individual level.
    There is far too much of this conflict, between races, nations, and religions to think that we can at this time in our history "all just get along." At best, we can reduce and manage the conflicts.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Agree.
      In addition open conflict is not the only problem of the process. Hidding things and treachery still here, inside own culture, sometimes with people just the same as we are.
      May be we need a new definition with whom we could be "get along". Also how to manage chenging. Sometimes it`s seems the merriage model shows what a problems could be, what`s normal and what`s became patological.
  • thumb
    Jun 26 2013: In most cases what happens is that you understand but colud not necessarily agree with someone else's ideas,culture,religion.But thats ok.If you like you can still respect and love them.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Ben, For the first three or four years I was envolved with TED it reall was a great site and as you say "we got along". That does not mean that there were not disagreements and often heavy discussions. Within the last year we have become obstructive, name calling, and looking for a fight not a discussion. Why?

    We are a community here at TED We are of many races, cultures, orgins, etc ... and for the most part play well together. We join, post, and reply by choice. The majority of members are by their own admission atheist and very liberal. I do not have a problem with that although it is not my preference. (Example of my closed mind).

    LaMar below wishes to make this a political topic and perhaps he is correct. Leaders do have sway over some opinions and set the national tone.

    The real question here ... and perhaps the focus of the conversation .... is does anyone really have a open mind.

    I can only guess the answer. Probally not. The saying "the hand that rocks the cradel rules the world" is a good example. If your parents, teachers, professors, are super liberals .... your chanches of becoming a conservative are pretty slim.

    You say accept races, religions, ideas, etc .. I don't think that is a good idea. I think we need to question, to examine, to seek new ideas and challenge old ideas. It may cause conflict but it is ying and yang and that in my opinion is a good thing.

    I wish you well. Bob.
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: Again, you seek a fight not a discussion. If you have a problem with either my conversations or my replys report them to TED staff for resolution.
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: Again, you seek a fight not a discussion. If you have a problem with either my conversations or my replys report them to TED staff for resolution.
      • thumb
        Jun 26 2013: Again, you seek a fight not a discussion. If you have a problem with either my conversations or my replys report them to TED staff for resolution.
  • thumb
    Jul 5 2013: We can get along except for our thinking that is divisive.
    You bring thought into any relationship, and we are at war.
    We are too focused on what separates us rather than what unites us.
    And without this feeling of separateness, our Egoic Identity cannot survive.
    Separateness involves the need for power and Control.
    The Ego is about Gain, in any form. It hates loss in any form.
    This is the root of all Greed, selfishness and suffering.
    This is the great dilemma.
  • Jun 27 2013: Humans will always have to live with conflict, but those conflicts do not have to result in violence.

    Getting along requires a will, education in conflict resolution, and then putting that education into action, doing what is needed to resolve the conflict.

    Getting along does not happen just by asking people to change their attitude. Peace requires a population that has confidence in institutions to provide justice. When our institutions reliably deliver justice, peace will follow. Building those institutions requires a lot of work.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Again, you seek a fight not a discussion. If you have a problem with either my conversations or my replys report them to TED staff for resolution.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: If you are implying evolution from a biological angle, we do need community but that community need not be global. However over time it is always better for the gene pool to be as diverse as possible. So biologically we can and do get along.
    When you take social evolution, getting along can at best be cooperation and that too when we are hard pressed. deep inside we are superiority seeking islands. My culture is better than yours. My religion is superior to yours. Given same culture and religion, I am fairer, richer, wiser than you. We can hardly get along.
  • Jun 25 2013: After reading the replies you have gotten so far, I sat bad & looked at this from another angle.
    There will come a time, sooner rather then later, when we all will need to work shoulder to shoulder because our very lives will depend on it.
    Only when a huge disaster hits do people work together & put aside all prejudices. So a global disaster is what it would take to bring the whole human race together and even then the outcome of that would be iffy. The human ego always steps in.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Generally agree.
      HUman has common open hearts in desasters. But individually everyone keeps own ego more or less, so we need to found people with the same characters to be with open heart.
      I used to think the same as the topic starter and payed a big price for it. Strongly recommend to be aware, because people outside includes predators too, just looking for an open heart to meal it.
      My last experiance costs me a lot so I must confess open heart doesn`t support me in such strange world. It needs more clear athmosphere as my friends.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: What about the idea that not all ideas should be accepted, should that idea be accepted?

    As Aristotle said "A friend to all is a friend to none"
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: I just realized that I'm not sure of the definition of "Getting along". How do you interpret it?
      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: I don't know... Too vague for me.
        I can't help to feel that there are plenty of examples where we can't get along. Cases that we feel so utterly different about that a compromise is in fact impossible.

        How do you compromise on Communism - Capitalism for example? Neither side is truly satisfied and we don't get along.

        But I AM all for harmony, I just think that EVERYBODY getting along is impossible.
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: We can agree to disagree, but what economic model will we follow, should we build churches or mosques? These things do not allow a compromise... Some choices that affect our lives are simply binary and we have to choose.
        If it wasn't so democracy wouldn't be needed...
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: Kate,

        I had no intention of doing "my superior atheist stand". I'm actually focused on the topic at hand and I thought we were having a good conversation about that.

        I brought up the church-mosque thing as an area where people wouldn't get along, who deserves the best place for it and why?

        But okay, we use the model that the majority have agreed on (democracy) but we already have that (to some extent) but people aren't getting along anyway... And that leads us back to my original point, we can't all get along.
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Jun 25 2013: As I see it we have been trying throughout human history to get along and we still haven't been able to do that... And I agree that it is self-defeating to say that you can't but there are things that can't be done, like jumping to the moon, I CAN'T do that.

        Since you brought up how peaceful religion is I feel that I have to counter that.

        A month ago Buddhist monks slaughtered many Muslims in Myanmar while police watched.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI5tz6rU3SQ

        And on the topic of India, have you read about the religious violence there? I was shocked by some of it (and I thought I knew most of it).
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_India
      • Comment deleted

      • Jun 26 2013: I think the aristotle quote that Jimmy Strobl used "a friend to all is a friend to none" makes perfect sense in a world with so much conflict. But if everyone showed the compassion and concern for others that Kate Blake seems to exhibit, then we would all be friends to all.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Wonderful thoughts......
    We just need to be inclusive in thoughts and action that's it.......Alas !!! sounds simple but utopic
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: Basically NO we can't, ironically coined by one who created the biggest riot of last century.

    Troubles can be assuaged if at a community level. But these days who even knows their neighbors?

    But at a centralized level forget about it.

    The key is communication, as always and as always the problems begin with a dearth of communication.
    Communication occurs in small groups families, churches, boy scout troops. In other words you do not have a conversation with a monolith.

    Open mindedness is BS as it really is masking the first decision which is that I'm not open minded. Additionally it becomes politically incorrect to have a viewpoint at all as that can be construed as racism. The problem is no view point = no learning in other words stupid.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: LaMar,

      "I think we need to elect only women to all positions of power for 10 years and see if that straightens things out because the male ego and desire to dominate and compete is a big part of the problem."

      Did you really mean that? If so any specific ethnicity they should have?

      I'm asking because I've never heard of this proposition before and for me it seems uncharacteristic of you to propose this.