[ View menu ]

The Georgia Guidestones

It has existed ever since 1980, but I only heard about this monument last year, when it was mentioned in passing in a piece about a conspiracy theory I happened to stumble into. Interestingly, the theory as a whole had merit, certainly being one of the most plausible ones I know of, but the Guidestones were obviously only mentioned for the very first line of text, which was seen as a terrible thing. Since I think that is, in fact, a very good idea, I disregarded the entire piece regarding the issue itself, though certainly not the rest of the theory or the warning that population reduction is in fact very likely to be done by actually killing people.
But this post should be strictly about the Guidestones, and more exactly about the engraved guidelines and my opinion of them. Just to get this out of the way from the beginning, I think that overall they’re some excellent new ten commandments, if I may use the term. Really couldn’t care less about who the author is or what “hidden agenda” various conspiracy theorists claim may be behind it. I’m looking at what’s quite literally set in stone and can only say that, with a few additions and after the necessary clarifications have been made, these are indeed rules that humanity as a whole could and likely should live by.
That said, let’s move on. I’ll simply list the ten guidelines, in order, followed by some brief comments I have for each. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t copy the exact punctuation as well, not to mention the alignment, but I just don’t care to. Anyone who is carefully looking into those is likely one of the above-mentioned conspiracy theorists anyway.

1. Maintain humanity under 500000000, in perpetual balance with nature.
The second part of this guideline should be common sense, so there’s nothing to comment regarding it. The first, on the other hand, is what infuriates so many people, because the thought of reducing population by any amount tends to have that effect, so such a drastic suggestion is certain to generate very angry reactions. However, I’m one of those who firmly pushes for a drastic reduction of the human population, so can only express my support for such goals.
Admittedly, 500 million is a relatively low value, but it can be justified by certain studies and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with such a target. In fact, there couldn’t be anything wrong even if it said 100 million, as that’s the lowest value that any serious and recent study regarding the maximum carrying capacity of the planet has turned up. The highest is around three billion, so I personally chose to be lenient about it and go with that as the maximum value I’d accept by the end of the century, though I’d be aiming for two and a half billion and hoping for two billion or less. Then again, there’s hardly anyone who considers that to be lenient, but it really is…
Obviously, the question is how will we achieve such a target. There’s no doubt that the easiest and most reliable method is slaughtering people en masse, whether openly or not. Which means that, if we want to avoid that scenario, we must very quickly adopt the other method, which is to limit the number of births to extremely low values in order for the population to naturally drop in time, even if the average life expectancy will continue to increase.

2. Guide reproduction wisely, improving fitness and diversity.
This connects perfectly with the above and is absolutely necessary, and the part about also improving diversity should be proof enough that the goal is not some sort of ethnic cleansing or any other such atrocity. If we need to drastically limit and regulate births, and we obviously do, then it only follows that we also need to determine which people are most fit to pass on their genes in order to actually improve the human race. Not that it’d be easy to do so, far from it, but it could be done if we’d put our minds to it, using purely objective criteria to both eliminate defects, starting with predisposition to disease, and encourage and improve useful qualities.

3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
That all humans need to know one language in order to be able to communicate with each other is perfectly obvious. What I’m not sure about is the “new” part. I think English would be a very fitting candidate, being a very efficient language and also, most importantly, the one most people in the world already know or are learning as a second language. What’s more, thanks to its simple alphabet, with a pretty low number of letters and no confusing diacritics, English also seems to be best suited to be a written language, and writing is already much more important for communication than speech in most parts of the world and will only become even more so as time passes. So I believe that discarding it and trying to create a new language would at the very least be pointless, likely adding unnecessary difficulties.
Should note that having one language that everyone would need to know well doesn’t have to imply that all other languages would vanish, as they could still be used at the national and local levels. They’d just become secondary languages, with the primary one being the one everyone knows. However, this language that everyone would be required to know would need to evolve in such a way as to include the concepts that may exist in other languages but initially not in it as well, ensuring that nothing meaningful would be lost by replacing all other languages with it in regular speech.

4. Rule passion, faith, tradition and all things with tempered reason.
This is just common sense, or would be if common sense would actually be common. Can’t really make any comments on it, because it is just as it should be.

5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
Again, common sense. Who wouldn’t want this? Or, well, I can think of some people who wouldn’t want it, namely the few who take advantage of the many thanks to unjust and corrupt systems, but they’re the ones we need to get rid of.

6. Let all nations rule internally, resolving external disputes in a world court.
A good idea, but it requires clarification. We need to determine what the individual countries can’t do before we offer them such freedom. They shouldn’t be able to have rules that allow the environment to be harmed, for example, nor should they be able to force their rules and regulations upon those who are yet to actually choose to live there, namely the children and those who lack the mental capacity to make such a choice. For pretty much anything else, absolutely, countries should rule internally, with little to no influence from any international bodies, but these issues must be settled first.
Such a concept would work very well in my ideal world order, which actually includes it. But it also includes a world government which would have full powers in certain areas. It would ensure that the environment is properly cared for, that children are properly raised and also being given the necessary information about all their options in order to make informed choices as they get older, and that people are free to move to any country they feel has laws closer to their own views. It would obviously also mediate disputes between countries, regulate and largely control the world’s military and also handle the issue of space exploration and the potential contact with other civilizations. Otherwise, in all matters that are likely to only affect those who have freely chosen to be its citizens, it would allow each country to make its own decisions, no matter how strange or perhaps even harmful they would appear for the rest.

7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
Yet another one that I can’t find anything to say about. This is just how it should be, though of course the notions of “petty law” and “useless official” would need to be defined in some way.

8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
My exact opinion about this would vary depending on the exact definition of “balance”. If it’s only meant in the sense that one person’s freedom to swing their fist stops at the other person’s nose, it’s common sense. If it means generally caring for one another, trying not to cause unjustified harm and doing your best to make up for the unjustified harm caused by accident, it’s once again common sense. If, however, it refers to a stricter sense of “duty” towards society, I’d start being bothered. But overall it sounds good, particularly if we’d be talking about a society based upon these guidelines.

9. Prize truth, beauty, love, seeking harmony with the infinite.
The first part of this is once again just how it should be, particularly when it comes to truth and love. Beauty is largely in the eye of the beholder and, in my opinion, shouldn’t exactly be a goal in itself, not to mention that prizing beauty can easily become shallowness. But in this context it works well enough, so the first part is fine as it is. The last is weird, however. It’s rather strange to include this reference to an undefined “infinite” in what is otherwise a very rational and pretty clearly defined piece of text that lacks any other such references. It may mean the bonds that connect us all or a higher force beyond the understanding of most religions, which would again make it pretty much common sense, but I’d really like some clearer definitions.

10. Be not a cancer on the Earth, leave room for nature, leave room for nature.
I personally find the comparison with cancer to be overestimating our importance in the big picture. That with a virus seems far more fitting, because that’s really what we seem to be if you consider the planet to be the living being we happen to be living on, or in. Still, the idea is certainly the right one. We should know that we are part of the world, not the other way around, and not only leave room but also care for all the other species we share this planet with, accepting the responsibility that comes with being the most evolved species on it.

2 Comments

  1. conspiracy detective says:

    When I think about the ‘New world order’ and look at the guide stones, I cant help but think it would be a better world. but is it worth sacrificing all our liberty and free thinking for? the facts are the world is over populated and increasing. If something doesnt change then we all starve,

    October 19, 2011 @ 2:04 AM

  2. Cavalary says:

    Liberty and free thinking shouldn’t be allowed to harm others who didn’t “sign up for it”, but only the individual who exercises those rights and any others who specifically agree to be affected by said individual’s actions.

    October 19, 2011 @ 3:32 AM

RSS feed Comments | TrackBack URI

Write Comment

Note: Any comments that are not in English will be immediately deleted.

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>