People as the most reasonable and responsible creature

If the person is reasonable, the elimination of borders would give the opportunity to build factories where their effectiveness would be increased by reducing the cost of compliance with the process. For example, the construction of glass factories in Africa, where the high temperature, and there is sand, then it would be lower costs to maintain the temperature in the furnaces, and the construction of nuclear power plants in cold regions(poles), would reduce the cost of cooling reactors, but it is necessary to explore and develop new ways of transmitting energy over long distances, and reducing the transmission losses. But neither companies nor the state is not necessary. If a man considers himself a man, he must draw a clear line between himself and the animal world. Western civilization, especially the United States, promotes animal instincts, as the value of human existence. Even Darwin was taken as a basis. Led by the instincts of reproduction and murder and campaign of greed. In the end, the goal of Western man to satisfy lust, to find easy money and kill someone or whether these" values." Not what kind of work up a sweat there is no question. If he is working then he is a slave, or a fool. In fact, the nature, God gave us a mind which no single living creature in the universe. For this reason, man as the highest intelligence on the planet must learn to take responsibility for their actions and all living organisms on the planet. Or abandoning of the mind to lie under the sun, enjoying the existence of and rely on the mercy of the Gods. The gods have endowed the mind of man, that he might understand the mysteries of the universe, to learn, to adapt to life in space, and to save all of God's creation. That is why people who only promote greed corrupts society don't value life, but rather create the conditions for hatred and murder, while advocating the taking of someone's life as the purpose of existence and on a pedestal, are from Satan. Just bringing to the forefront the mind and all the best human qualities in promoting and developing them, humanity will survive and move on.

The Possession of weapons a crime

This thesis should become the basis for building a safer world. Weapon at all times was designed for killing living beings. And now, using marketing technology, and the greed of politicians, arms company presented arms as a means of protection. From whom it should protect? In America, the greed of the arms companies reveals the truth about the capitalist world. All the technology these campaigns aimed at obtaining profit at any cost. Here in all its glory appears the institution of lobbying that our leadership is trying to adopt. Why do lobbyists do not protect the right to life of ordinary Americans? Why not prolobbirovat a bill to ban weapons. Yes, because the Institute of lobbying was created for the rich. This is the official corrupt organization, which, having addressed officially by paying legal means, rich companies can push through or block any legislation. And they do not care about ordinary people. And this system is supported by the government, which is supposed to protect its citizens. Why no one aims to ban weapons as a means of murder. To protect citizens, there are police laws. And, if you allow guns, then why do we need the police and the army? Only a complete ban on guns, its removal and destruction will bring to mankind the real security. But this requires the victory of reason and the destruction of the thinking of the killer.

Funds from weapons to food

That's all they say about some global issues, like they are terrible. And again a marketing ploy. You can earn billions of dollars on global warming, promotion of the hunger, the fight against terrorism. And, moreover, doing nothing constructive. Not committed to clean car exhaust, not to control the disposal of motor oil, not plant trees, not to look for ways to improve the efficiency of cultivation of food products, their naturalness of production, and the creation and sponsoring of terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda, ISIS, as many other organizations created and sponsored by the United States directly. But if reasonable people will finally prohibit the carrying and manufacture of weapons, then mankind will have the means to the solution of the food problem. But you need a Union of countries around the world, the creation of a single world government that would regulate and migration policies in the world, and the efficiency of production, and distribute funds for the advancement of science and space exploration, and of course would have solved the housing and food problems. And at the moment examples of the use of resources and capabilities: Japan population roughly equal to Russia, as economic development surpasses it. Now again begins the arms race, and rights of people are violated and about starving soon forgotten. But billions are spent on weapons.

The Unity of thinking

To stop the arms race, and as a beginning of disarmament and creating a safer world it is necessary to create a unified thinking on the planet. This requires a common religion, ideology, language, one government, one economy, the abolition of borders, etc. the Only way mankind can survive. Someone will say that this is nonsense. But look at the other living beings. Everyone is trying to survive at any cost, and no mass kills of their own kind. Only one creature imagined himself not whole, what a genius, and spends precious time on the destruction of their own kind. And that tells us-children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, unless of course their parents won't burn from radiation, when in a few years what may be a black hole approaching the solar system. Oh, right, Americans plugged it in dollars, or flooded with oil. This is how stupid a reasonable person that started the study of the cosmos, seeing the threat to the life of the planet, said, ay, it then may be. Now we'll create a new weapon that will kill more of the living, and we will take all of the good itself. Who said anything about the overpopulation of the planet? You look at the world. If the world as people are killed, how much give lives for space exploration? And how can you talk about the overpopulation of the planet (by the way another marketing ploy aimed at raising funds almost from the air), if you look at how much land on the planet is not used as intended or efficiently? Look at the countries of East Asia and compare it with Russia, Europe, Australia, and compare the result of the use of resources between them. Yes, the industry in these countries can be said to bring the West, but with a smaller population, Western countries are unable to make an economic miracle. The only competitive advantage in East Asia, which actually has helped countries in the region to boost the economy is cheap labor, there is still the lack of environmental restrictions. Everything else: Land, resources, technology and equipment, lack of infrastructure and communications, etc. all could play a brake, or as in the case of Russia, excuse, but would not develop. Similarly, the world's leading countries come up with any problems: Hunger, global warming, lack of resources, terrorists, viruses, whatever, but would not solve the real problems of ordinary people. Common thinking aimed at human survival in space, space exploration, and the development of mankind as the purpose of existence of every rational being on the planet should be a mission on the planet, supported by leadership, to advocate, and to focus all efforts on achieving the goal. Only in this case the person will cease to be like ants that perform everyday tasks, and when a nuclear explosion disappear without a trace. It is necessary to build a nuclear bomb, and to create sources based on nuclear reactions, and look for ways to protect them enough to get the same effect as the sun gives us. That humankind can on any cold planet to create a similar source of heat. But it does not divide the world into parts, to tear to pieces only because of greed that they have it, and we don't, or they see the world to others, or they are not like us, not like kindergarten? But talk like adults, and educated, chosen by the majority, that is to say the best. If this is the best, then what kind of reasonable person can say in the 21st century?