What would the world be like if all men looked alike and all women looked alike? We'd be numbered to differentiate us. Otherwise?

We would not sound the same. We would all look alike and be indistinguishable from one another except by number. That's the whole point Walt. Visually you need to know the number. But when we speak we speak with a vast array of intelligence or lack there of, love or lack thereof, kindness or lack thereof. CONTENT is all the counts. Packaging is all identical. Sounds as if you'd have a huge problem with it.

What I'd like you to do instead of finding fault with it is to understand my point which is our "knowing" one another would be based entirely and completely upon whom we are as thinking feeling human beings and NOT WHAT WE LOOK LIKE. A novel concept perhaps but can you focus on that? If not thank you for your reply. This post was edited by RosieG at September 1, 2020 8:14 AM MDT

I don't have a problem with the concept, per se.
But I think there will still be discrimination other than based on intelligence, compassion, etc.

People don't sound the same?
There will be discrimination based on accents.
IE: People with a southern accent are often thought of as "dumb", regardless of their education.

Two genders?
There will still be gender discrimination.

Thanks for coming back to extend the conversation Walt. Is there any way to get down to a way to never discriminate? Why is that such a homo sap essential? I don't need to be "better than" and I don't think I'm "less than" based on anything but my intellect talent experience productivity. What I look like. My age. My gender. What I sound like. Why should any of that matter? This is another one of the "cheese" things probably. Remember you cut off the part of the cheese that is spoiled and the rest is good...half life of nuclear stuff. You found a way to work on my level of understanding. Can you do it again? :)

It's probably related to the fact we are pack animals, and have been competing for resources just to survive for hundreds of thousands of years.  It takes a while for the whole to evolve.

Even if we found a way immediately to access the entire resources of the multi-verse, and there was no other competing species ... there would still be the ingrained competition and discrimination against other humans.

The only way I can think of to do away with it completely, would be to regress to a state that we literally couldn't even think on that level.  Like most animals.  Even though they are sentient, and compete for the same resources, they have far less discrimination (without cause) than humans.

We have no problem foolling around with plants to "breed out" less desirable qualities and "breed in" the more desirable qualities. Why not do so with homo saps? Tomatoes are bred to sturdy up and withstand cold and heat. Of course they become tasteless but so what? Flowers can be bred to last a long time. Of course you give up fragrance but so what? I'm just saying we do it with vegetables and probably do it with minerals and I know we do with animals others homo saps. Shouldn't we try it? We might like it? I shall ask. Thank you for your reply Walt! :)

I appreciate the info and the link but how does this address my question? Are you saying that "DIFFERENCES IN APPEARANCE ARE ESSENTIAL TO DEVELOPING PERSONALITY? That if we all looked alike we would all have the same personality? That makes no sense. Our intellects and natures are different. I'll click on the link and maybe what I just said will make sense to me after I've read it. Thank you for your reply tom! :) OK this is weird. I just clicked on the link and got a WARNING that proceeding further might do harm so I cannot access it. SIGH. This post was edited by RosieG at September 1, 2020 12:39 PM MDT

No---I'm saying that being able to recognize and infer many real attributes by simply seeing differences that indicate a first approximation of the beliefs and values of 7 billion people makes it possible to generally categorize those whom I may choose to get to know on an individual basis.

Seven billion people is an unwieldy number to come to know.  Race, religion, etc. are useful indicators of information about others and for me I think 2 different groups of identical looking people would be of no benefit.

Further, psychologists acknowledge that the initial attraction of a woman as a potential wife may be due to the fact that the man's mother may have had soft, long hair when she nursed him and he has subconsciously chosen by initial impulse a girl to date with long hair because he associates it with the pleasure of having received alleviation of hunger by a mother who fed him with breast milk while she wore her hair long.

And of course, our bodies are determined by the genes of two other humans. 

So what would the world be like if all men looked alike and all women looked alike?---about as interesting as if all flowers and trees looked identical to the other flowers and trees.

And I would have no interest in smelling each flower to see if they produced different scents.

When you put it that way tom I see your point. I was trying to figure out a way to make the "playing field" more level. It's stacked against the plain and stacked for well the "stacked" as it were. I guess there is no way to do it. We breed in and out less desiable traits in vegetables and maybe mineral and for sure other animals excluding homo saps. Why not take a spin in that arena? Thank you for your reply! :)

I just don't want to adopt a new system of inference for the rough but useful system I use for initial interacting with new people. (Some would call me lazy, psychologists would call me normal.)

[In the formal legal world, a court case that is dismissed with prejudice means that it is dismissed permanently. A case dismissed with prejudice is over and done with, once and for all, and can't be brought back to court. (A polite way for the judge to tell the plaintiff that his "cause of action"---his basis for filing his suit---is patently ridiculous and an insult to reality.)]

I have enough trouble with the terms of service on any site that requires that all opinions be respected---even though I can think of a number of opinions that exist in the world that could appropriately "dismissed with prejudice" (thrown back in the person's face, never to be read or heard of again).




This post was edited by tom jackson at September 3, 2020 1:41 AM MDT

I just had my comeuppance tom...on my own petard as it were. Sigh. Here I am railing about "judging" on appearance and I found I did the exact same thing. Nanoose alluded to something about one of the dipstick's former employees...Sara the supercilious condescending snarky press secretary. My reply to him was based solely on her "appearance" and until I was in the throes of it I did not realize how easily I fell into it. So there ya go! Ick. Thank you for your reply and Happy Thursday to thee and thine! :) As for "respecting all opinions" that is patently RIDICULOUS! It was Hitler's opinion that Jews should be exterminated! Seriously why would any sane decent homo sap  "respect" that? Oy vey! :) This post was edited by RosieG at September 3, 2020 12:40 PM MDT