Orientation and consequential love of the generics of human

[The Voice of Time]

I believe that in the future of human kind, we have to adopt a new belief in a genericism of the human being. This belief comes about by the facilitation of an orientation towards some select number of representations of human kind, that will together form the genericism of the human being.

Generics is all about having some set of specifications, or references or qualities, that lets you talk about and refer to many things while only having one particular idea in mind.

I'm not sure how to do this, and I'm in the process of trying to find out. For instance, an insanely complicated problem which most would probably reject as impossible, is the question of whether one can have such a thing as a generic sexual orientation? And I don't mean the dictionary defintion of sexual orientation, because even if a person is heterosexual and is a man the person doesn't have to like all women. I mean the practical real-world phenomena of sexual orientation where we end up with certain particular objects or very specific and particular range of objects (including objectifications of humans in part) that we are able to find sexually exciting. Could you possibly make this relate to a genericism? Have people actually become sexually excited by generic, non-specific, features of human kind?

The point is to create a love of human kind itself, that is genuine and real, and not an abstraction or an idea merely. Not formed into duty, but perhaps a form of natural inclination towards devotion to this genericism of human kind.

What have lead me to find this so important, is my seeking out of a way in which to give a solution to the problem of divergent and opposite interests, and more importantly: the security of all of human kind (of which divergent interests is a subproblem). By consolidating interests about a flexible but strong idea that includes, incorporates, the most important thing to human beings: themselves, or those they love. To have a way of loving humans, without focusing all the love on particular humans. I think the way one should deal with favourism, is that favourism comes out of necessity, out of rationalization of the major problem where you choose the nearest and most efficient problem to treat with support, and not out of a closed world interest relationship between you and that person (local versus localization, chosen versus sought).

This belief would become a dogma, an imperative of common ethics, to enforce a natural belonging among the members of human kind and its extended members. Orientation is how we work to adapt ourselves towards a target, and in this orientation we seek to find good things we can enjoy, by which we can find a desirable and enjoyable place within. Somewhere we will want to stick to. The naturalization of society, you could say. It's not about blind devotion, neither blind belief, while it is a dogma, the devotion is an investment of time and identity, where the belief references the security of human kind in its self-love. It is a dogma mainly because you can't play around with it too much, or else the rigidity that solidifies human relations and makes it strong and highly supportive of human kind, becomes a weak foundation that could easily break...

Now, have anyone else thought about this, any one of you in particular? Or feel drawn to this idea... this concept of social engineering? There are no particular methods explained here, so feel free to think of the most satisfying method you can when you ask yourself the questions.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

You deserve an award for the title alone.

[The Voice of Time]

You deserve an award for the title alone.

^^ Well I'm glad to hear you find it interesting xD