What's the best path for the future of humanity?

What's the best path for the future of humanity?
>Science
>Religion
>Capitalism
>Nature
>War
>Big Brother
>Democracy

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=evs0nFCufNM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

...

Science reporting in.

Technology

Capitalism Baby!

I'm a Christian feminist.

1st post best post

youtube.com/watch?v=evs0nFCufNM

Human behavior is economic behavior. The particulars may vary but competition for limited resources remains a constant. Need as well as greed has followed us to the stars and the rewards of wealth still await those wise enough to recognize this deep thrumming of our common pulse.

INFINITE VIOLENCE

upvote for Alpha Centauri reference

>A scientific and militaristic technocracy/meritocracy devoid of materialism and religion, with strong invididualistic mindset, yet solidarity with your fellow humans, beyond close family

Benevolent alien intervention.

Second best option is a heavily scientific society that focuses on nature and eventual terraforming of other celestial bodies.

Return of Scholastic thought, virtue ethics, and Natural Law ideologically.
A rise of civic nationalism and promoting class collaboration under National Law.

Is this a fucking Civilization videogame or..?

Anyway, since pretty much neither of those are mutually exclusive, I'd say a Traditionalist Capitalistic Aristocratic Republic. But that's just my flavor of anti-democratic conservatism.

This answer is non-retarded.

>Is this a fucking Civilization videogame or..?

Would you like to make an open borders agreement?

Transhumanism.

CYBORG RACEWAR WHEN?

>Return of Scholastic thought, virtue ethics, and Natural Law ideologically
So basically a war destructive enough to send humanity back to the middle ages?

ask farage, he knows

Science, combined with capitalism and war.

Singularity bombs!

>Implying our philosophy is more advanced that Medieval philosophy, politics and law

Technocracy

>Captain Santiago
>A man

wait wat

Nature is great if your planet is full of psychic fauna and flora that will turn you into a god being if you love it enough.

>war

wat

>send humanity back to the Middle Ages

No, just refute some of the intellectual mistakes of modernity that is causing disarray on the west intellectually. Neo-scholasticism exists even this day, m8.

Plague. Terribly, widespread, deadly plague.

Catholocism. Fuck that baptist meme bitch in that game.
>all those research nerds
The church invented the scientific method
Also if you science without morality you end up with trannies and double ended dildo sex bots

>intellectual mistakes of modernity
Like what? Liberalism may be a huge mistake, ideologically speaking, but going back to medieval thought isn't a solution nor is it going to happen.

>Neo-scholasticism exists even this day
Where exactly, besides maybe the Vatican? I know Catholics feel nostalgic when they think about the times when theology and Aristotle mattered, they just seem to forget any kind of philosophy is entirely dependent on its historical context. Trying to revive scholasticism these days, if possible at all, would be an anachronism at best.

This one

>they just seem to forget any kind of philosophy is entirely dependent on its historical context

It's the other way around huehuehue.
If it weren't for the cuck train of philosophy winning out again and again for the last 500+ years, things would be a lot different.

>le Pandora's box historical inevitability meme

That only works if one believes the philosophy in question represents reality or "natural law".
"Liberalism" doesn't.

>cuck train of philosophy winning out again and again for the last 500+ years
And why do you think it won so many times, my potato friend?

>That only works if one believes the philosophy in question represents reality or "natural law".
Or, you know, if it represents the circumstances of its historical context.

Liberalism doesn't represent reality in the sense that its postulates are true (as in the case of racial equality, for example), but it does stand as a proof of the conditions that allowed the birth of such ideologies in the first place.

That is, the natural law here is more related to socioeconomic pressures than philosophical truthfulness.

>Like what? Liberalism may be a huge mistake, ideologically speaking, but going back to medieval thought isn't a solution nor is it going to happen.

Liberalism itself came from the western interest in "freedom" let loose after the modern west rejected the philosophical notion of Final Causality. Without Final Causality we end up causing an intellectual bridge which effects us today, such as creating problems such as Is-Ought which brings us to moral relativism and hampering our capacity to understand rights in an objective sense, which was highly influential in the Enlightenment period. Without understanding goal-directedness in nature we have no means to decide what rights are in an objective way and so become social agreements like they are today. Further, the rejection of it is largely what made the Mind-Body Problem become a thing. That's just one example but such a comment requires much study.

I don't suggestion a return to the time of Scotus and Bonaventure but just recognize that modernity is an intellectual revolution AWAY from Scholasticism and that this revolution made a lot of very powerful changes over time. I believe the west looking to its intellectual parents and seeing its mistakes would be good for it, but there is a hell of a lot of baggage to even come to examining it rationally.

>Where exactly, besides maybe the Vatican?

I don't know, where to eliminative materialists exist? What kind of question is that? There are many academic Scholastics in the modern day: Etienne Gilson, John Wild, Henry Veatch, Mortimer Adler, and the like.

I'm a gay Catholic foreign Jew that love the bbc, and I support Trump

>And why do you think it won so many times, my potato friend?

Well, two reasons: because it appeals to base nature rather than reason, and because the factions that supported these beliefs won out in major wars and/or were not suppressed violently enough by their opposition.

You only have to look at basic history to notice that every new refinement of liberal-left theology/philosophy has its own massive, destabilising war to go along with it.
If leftism doesn't finally reach the end of its line by the time Islam is strong enough in Europe to wage an ISIS-style war here, we will have the newest and hopefully final battle between left philosophy and right philosophy within a generation.

>Liberalism doesn't represent reality in the sense that its postulates are true (as in the case of racial equality, for example), but it does stand as a proof of the conditions that allowed the birth of such ideologies in the first place.
>That is, the natural law here is more related to socioeconomic pressures than philosophical truthfulness.

Your use of the term "natural law" is wrong-headed and poisoned by modernist lies.
To say that the fact of people wanting something and being in the dominant position sufficient to enforce that thing makes it "natural law" is cheapening to the term and philosophical language as a whole.