people have the choice to believe whatever they want about their own realities.

once you (Kn1vez) explain to people that living in your reality is a road to happiness, who would choose not to, save those who are not willing to embrace happiness?

according to game theory, specifically the nash equilibrium, there is an equilibrium point in every argument. there is a perfect way to consider everyone's point of view and include it in the outcome of an argument. in short, it is possible to make everything fair and equal. the question is: what about selfish people who are unwilling to accept their half of a compromise? there is another common game in game theory called prisoner's dilemma. type it up on wikipedia to see exactly what it is. for the most part it says that if two people are in an argument and they have all the pertinent information (no one has the advantage) then the best route that both players can take is to cooperate with one another. in fact, it's hard to create a simple game that satisfies a condition where noncooperation is the best move in a series of games (not just one game, but several). looking at life as a series of situations in which simplistic games are played (dominance and submission leads to survival of the fittest, etc) the best move for any player is cooperation. it is hard to accomplish very much without the help of others. dominance and submission doesnt need to exist among humans any more because if we choose to dominate another human via violence, we COULD blow up the entire world. humans hold their fate (and the fate of everything) in their own hands.

ultimately, if everyone were to love each other and live peacefully, there would inevitably be someone who would attempt noncooperation, or at least entertain the possibility of it and eventually manifest it in reality because they thought that they could achieve more for themselves if they took from others. again, it's hard to do anything on your own. imagine trying to do calculus if you had to create every concept on your own, without being told or shown. if people are willing to cooperate with you and help you discover calculus, it would take less time, which it does. we can learn most of newton's achievements in one year of high school. which is my point, why dont people just cooperate? what do you have to gain by trying to prove that your way is better, as long as their way doesnt harm you?

in order for the human race to progress, we must realize that there are three parts to every argument. as humans we are flawed because we do not realize that we are flawed. you cannot learn anything until you accept that you dont already know it. those who think they do know everything (theyve been thinking that they do for a long, long time) are slowing things down.
example:
a hollographic picture hangs on a wall and looks like a frog from the right, a rabbit from the left. in reality, it is a picture of a frog AND a rabbit. however, if you place two people in the room at the right angles, you will always have one person who thinks rabbit, and another who thinks frog. until they accept that they do not know everything they would not move to see the picture in a different light. reality exists beyond perception, and it is our foolishness that has led us to believe otherwise. the reality that you perceive can be completely different than the reality another person perceives. everyone perceives things in their own mind so technically, as long as you are considering something from your own point of view and your reasoning is sound, you are correct. however, if you dont have all of the facts because maybe you didnt see what actually happened, you arent. some people are so firm in believing their own experiences that they try to say they are correct when it is possible that they arent. until you have exhausted every alternate possibility and are absolutely positive that you are correct, you cannot assume that you are correct. most people just dont have all the facts to draw the right conclusions.

what might happen if everyone had the facts?

still, some might choose to ignore them. some might choose to aim their desires at themselves instead of everyone because they see personal gain in it.

regardless of all of this and what it might mean, we are currently killing our planet. we are disrupting the "circle of life" by changing everything around us to whatever we want it to be. cities with paved roads and huge skyscrapers and such exist because humans want them to exist. are we so ignorant to life and the balance that coexists with it that we choose to slowly destroy it?

wonderful post Kn1vez

cheers