@Relaxed “human rights” are a spectrum and are not an end goal in and of themselves. The question is how well the country’s citizens are living, how safe and secure they area, how likely is power to change hands as a result of elections, how well the rule of law and property law are preserved.

George W. Bush maybe stole the election from Gore in 2000…. But that doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, it’s close enough.

@Relaxed what’s the point of anything? What is the ultimate goal of humanity? Why do we wake up every day and keep on slouching towards Bethlehem?

Elon at least has an idea. The vast majority of other people are stuck in their own little world and can barely plan for 5 years ahead, let alone 5,000. If all goes well there would have been a total of 100 trillion humans alive cumulatively by the end of humanity, meaning we’re in the first 1% of humans to have ever existed. Things like the 1953 Refugee Convention are such a tiny element in the grandiose plans of the universe that they won’t even deserve an asterisk

I don't think humanity needs an overarching goal or that any goal is good just because it is “an idea”. I certainly do not believe a species or nation-level goal should define actual existing people's “worth” or trump their rights.

You're the one who brought up human rights and this vision is the most antithetical to the very idea of human rights, some latent totalitarianism with a good does of nationalism thrown in. I genuinely did not understand that's what you meant by “civilzation” but this only confirms that it wasn't a very useful concept in our earlier discussion.