By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: If you want to send someone to save the world, first make sure that they like it ;p
does this mean anything to you? Is it like a lost in translation thing?
It was a we chat "what's up" status update...
Seen any funny one's lately?
it probably means that no one Chinese should save the world. !
Yeah it sorta does. It means the person you sent to save the world must first care about the world and like the world as it is.
Shining_brow:
That makes sense... after all, they might decide that the world (or humanity) isn't worth saving!
I understand it as "to try to save the world without asking the advice of anyone, just doing what you believe to be right, it would be awful tyranny". To which I agree, that would be easy to defend. Decentralized, distributed decision is optimal and robust to noise, local failures and more. It's hard to design and implement.
Shining_brow:
I think that depends... so far, we've seen what happens when asking the opinions of people to decide matters... no-one wants to take responsibility for anything, no-one wants to make the sacrifices necessary... self-interest rules!
And, thus, the world keeps getting worse :(
DrMonkey:
Is it getting worse, or not ? We are getting better informed, and we have a far better attention on potential dangers, rather than the good news. I wouldn't call 19th century "good old times", nor the 1960's. Courage and realism.
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
it probably means that no one Chinese should save the world. !
It means that, if you want to save/improve the world, there must be a person who believes that it is worth saving.
Humanity isn't worth saving, and deserves extinction.
If you want to send a mercenary to save the world, first make sure that the people like being indebted to him
If you want to send someone to save the world, first make sure that they like your planned changes
If you want to transport by spaceship someone to save the world, first make sure that the alien likes it
If you want to command a subordinate to save the world, first make sure that they like being ordered around
If you want to send a messiah to save the world, first make sure that your worshipers like being saved
If you want to send someone to save the planet, first make sure that the inhabitants like it
If you want to send someone to save the world, first make sure that they like the task
If you want to send someone to save the world, first make sure that they like the world
"Save the World" can mean a lot of things.
save humanity, as spiderboenz concluded. though humanity is as much under threat as a rat-infested farm is by a few mouse traps…
save the Earth is a more interesting interpretation, as it depends on your inclination whether you decide to work with or directly against humanity - humanity is a major threat to the Earth's health.
Save the world in a social-political sense. Influencing society to bring it closer to your definition of utopia.
Save the world morally, with values. Religion and other beliefs can lend weight and validity to your quest.
Save the world from conflict. However, harmony or peace as end goal lends itself to all sorts of abuse and exploitation, when you are unwilling to take action for the sake of peace/harmony.
Save the world as in preserve it for posterity, protect it from change. That was a stretch, so i'll stop there.
What i like about those oneliner slogans that people post online, is how they generalized it into a global catchphrase, but still expect everyone to know what they are talking about.
silverbutton1:
"though humanity is as much under threat as a rat-infested farm". Are you saying that humanity has infested the planet like rats can do on a ship? What is your basis for this.. overpopulation? Have you actually done ANY research on the overpopulation theory (which I personally think is propaganda BS).
If "it" refers to the world, then it makes sense.
Putting the world's fate into the hands of someone that hates said world would just doom it (he/she would let it be destroyed).
If "it" refers to the fact of saving the world, it also makes sense.
If that person doesn't want to do it and reluctantly does a half-assed job, the world would most likely be doomed.
That's not whacky at all. I've been fooled.
