Who would we all be the same as. Me? You? Hmm....that's impossible to discide...I wonder where this will go.

It would create unfairness. If everyone was the same you could be a doctor and i could be unemployed and we'd have to get the same pay, which clearly isn't fair. Or because everyone is the same, there are so many people in the world would we all not be able to afford houses and we'd all be homeless?

You can't all be the same, otherwise people are unfair and what's to determine how something should be the same? Should we all have blonde hair and blue eyes? should we all drive cars?

The "uniqueness" that is usually talked about is mostly as talents and preferences, not to do with worldly issues such as war and crime.

GYAH! I can not even IMAGINE a world filled with only clones of one type of person. ESPECIALLY filled with clones of me, Oh GOD, if they WERE clones of me, I would DIE!

I like being myself. And I do think that diversity is one of the best, most beautiful, and most INTERESTING things about this planet.

As for the lack of wars-- no. Have you seen twins fighting? We will always find something to quibble over. ESPECIALLY if we were all the same. First of all, we would go crazy and want to kill ourselves (like I said-- God, seriously, to be surrounded by monotony? Insane!). Second of all, as Snerkie pointed out-- RESOURCES! We're ALWAYS fighting over resources. If we were one global community, and we were all one religion, one political party, one set of morals, one physical description, hell, even one gender, why don't you (imagine we're asexual, now THAT is a horrible idea just by itself! Life without sex? What's the point?), then we would all need resources. Food, water, living conditions, sanitation, OIL (yup, we would still need oil because we'd all drive SUVs)-- and some of us would have it and others wouldn't.

Honestly, if you've ever seen two twin babies squabbling over one toy, I think you'll get what I mean.

It depends on what you mean by "the same". As with any discussion (or debate, if we were to go that far), it really depends on definitions. If you mean "the same" absolutely - that we were identical in every way - then there'd only be one of us (spatially we're all the same only if we're all in exactly the same place). If you allow difference in physical location, would we all be the same mentally? That situation might bring about the examples you mention (no war, discrimination, hunger or arguments), but it would mean that we would all be part of a vast hive mind. One person thinks of a pink elephant, everyone thinks of a pink elephant. One person scratches his ear because everyone is scratching his left ear. Total harmony!

It's possible that a slightly less extreme version of "the same" would have a similar effect (say, if we all had the same IQ, same education, upbringing, tastes, preferences, and values), but even then I'm not sure. Those shared values would have to be uniformly serving the group (rather than the individual) for there even to be a chance of no conflict.

Basically it boils down to will. If we each have the same free will, then there will be conflict and discrimination, because even if we wouldn't be unique beyond a few finite conditions (location, specific thoughts), we'd be looking at things through a different perspective than someone else in a different location. Brainwaves being the same would just end up meaning that people would have more predictable reactions, not that those reactions would be any less focussed on promoting themselves. If there's one cookie, and we think alike, we're probably both going to want the cookie and end up in conflict over it. Groups of like-minded (literally, in this case) people would have the same problem: "We all agree that you guys should bake us some cakes. And we won't return the books we borrowed from you until we get them (with cream cheese frosting)."

We are all the same. We each look exactly alike, our brainwaves are the same, our opinions, our likings and dislikings.

Bringing up the fact of what snerkie said: Should we all have blonde hair and blue eyes? < Perhaps because my imagination only goes so far, AND to solve the problem of who/what we'd all be identical to, we'd all look identical to who you are, in your eyes. Meaning cinders would see 4 billion cinders, harold would see 4 billion harolds.

But that brings up the point ofcinders and snerkie of global issues and such. Do you think it'd be fair if i said we all owned one car, we all had the same schedule, we all had the same of everything? (Twin babies getting two toy cars that look the same). I guess those babies would want the other toy anyways...hmm...well im glad im asking you guys and not the other way around!

But where do you GET all these things is my question.

And I don't want to be a bee in a hive. That's way too chilling for me. I swear there was a sci-fi book like this somewhere. But your description reminds me of suburbia, and subsequently of "Little Boxes" by Malvina Reynolds, and subsequently of Weeds.

Why do you want everyone to be the same? Life would be boring, not to mention it wouldn't be YOUR life anymore. You would be a drone, an ant, in a nest of other ants, without an original thought or idea or purpose. What would be the point of living?

And there's still the issue of resources.

Also someone looking a way "in your eyes" is not possible. As there are things like height, weight, disabilities. There's a lot of factors if everyone was the same. Someone with a disability could think they're normal, should that mean, if we were all the same, we'd all have this disability?? I'm 4'9" so would we all be my height?? Or like a lot of the world would we be obese? skinny?

I don't think evryone being identical woul dhelp any in ending conflict in the world. What would help, imho, is a universal set of values that everyone believes in. If everyone follws the same goals using the same code of values or ethics, smaller conflicts or disagreements would fade into un-importance (is that a word). Free will is a great thing if led by conscience. I don't know if I'm aking sense, it is hard to put in words. But maybe you get what I mean.

oh wow harold, that hurt my head! i swear to god you can not just be one man...wants your job again? single handed runningly NASA oh yes i remeber now

when i first read the forum post i thought you was talking about communism which is something i always find interesting due to sociology but when ever i bring it up no one responds well it's always "good thoery on paper" and that's it

anyways if we all the same tastes like we all the believes and such but not the same mind.....hmmm interesting i think because of resources and survival we would still start a war over resources, since this is hypothetical we can say well say there was enough resources well then i guess the answer would be no?

But there could still be a disagreement over something, and if that happens then everyone would argue, even if they agree because that's how society works. They don't understand when people are on the same team and they'll still argue for the sake of arguing.

I think there would be problems, it would all depend on what resources there were, etc and how people were.