![]() |
How to save the world?
Difficult question I know. And a lot of people possibly just think it is impossible. However, I'm seriously looking for approches to a solution.
So here are some things I've considered so far. 1. One person is hardly enough to change the world. All world changers I know never thought "Let's change the world today.". Except for one or two politicians maybe, but those submit or get killed eventually. 2. So to change the world continously for the better, one person, one lifetime is not enough. We need a change of awareness of many people, maybe start with an organization. 3. From my experience with the German Pirate Party I made in the last year, grassroot (basis) democracy is a good concept, but it doesn't work to well when everyone is permitted to contribute stupid ideas. We would need a way to have fruitful discussions with more than 50 people or find something better than democracy. High goals, I know. 4. I think the change we need the most is in education. I believe that with better education, more people who want to save the world will appear, bringing more ideas etc. Like a wheel that is rolled down a hill the movement will grow itself over the decades if we could get it started. What do you think? |
The real question is, what are we saving the World from?
|
Well, what do you see as the biggest problems in the world? Figure out what problems are the worst, think about what can be done to fix them in the short- and long-term, and then work with other people to work at any solutions you came up with.
|
In my opinion the environment is why the world needs saving. Education is definitely the key to this and greed is the only reason nothing is being done. We're all screwed unless governments start making real investments in green energy and consumers become more mindful of their habits.
As for myself, I walk and catch public transport, limit my power (i also pay a premium on my electricity bill to ensure investment in green energy by my power company) and water consumption and am saving to get solar panels on my roof. I am also thinking about switching my monthly charity donations to a charity that engages in activities to slow some of the damage we are causing. But that's just my effort, most people are more concerned with their leisure to give a shit. |
The only way humans could be saved is if they were annihilated. The only enemy humans have ever had since we were anything is ourselves.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
One of my Skype friends, Ian Malcom from the original Jurassic Park novel, and respected comedian George Carlin have stated that the world doesn't need saving, because it can fix itself and has experienced mass destruction before in the past. Us being gone wouldn't make a huge impact.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
but I sure as hell don't have an answer to whether or not the world needs saving, so maybe I should step back now. |
well, the global death of capitalism would be a wonderful starting point in 'saving the world', regardless of what you think saving the world is exactly
but that might as well be an abstract thought for our generation and the next couple of generations after us i certainly don't bloody know how we'd ever dismantle that machine |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
A lot of the times, the threats to the world (poverty, famine, overpopulation, crime, etc, are a series of events. A lack of education or opportunity gives way to poverty. Poverty to crime, in some cases. Instead of trying to tackle the individual "symptoms", you need to treat the source. The real enemy to human advancement, all over the world, is a lack of education. Many third world countries, especially those in Africa, could be lifted out of poverty if the educational systems were there, because with a modern, effective system of learning you then have your surgeons, doctors, chemists, architect, engineers, etc needed for stable society. From there, you nation build and "develop" in a Western, industrialized sense. If you combat poverty and give people the opportunity, you not only reduce the poverty rate but you take a chunk out of the crime rate for people of that socioeconomic status, and so on and so forth.
So instead of a really broad approach, where we just go after the symptoms, we need a specified, targeted approach to tackle the world's problems at their source. Maybe that's the issue we've been having all along. |
I don't think "western industrialization" is really an ideal model to be going on. Our crowning achievement, the USA, is rife with problems. One of the main reasons third world countries are experiencing such poverty is because capitalist countries have been exploiting these nations for centuries, but that's a different topic.
Political and economic overhaul is the only solution. What we have is not working, so let's change it. Except the people with power like the way it is, so are doing everything they can to condition society into A) believing there is no alternative B) thinking what we have is good. Quote:
|
Quote:
go on explain your thoughts rather than making an almost useless post |
Technically the world doesn't need saving, because it's able to fix itself easily, after humankind blew itself up. But if we're talking about a world where humankind still exists, then we're talking of creating an utopia, where everyone has come to a conclusion on what's the best way to live.
I think, there are only two possible ways to achieve this: nobody is ruled by anybody, but themselves, or everybody is ruled by the same (non human) being. If nobody is ruled by anybody but themself, then there's no set rules, no set morale, no right and nor wrong. Since nobody can be judged by anybody else, everyone would live on their own (but also right) way. All problems would be solved and all people would be happy. The problem with this is, everybody has to be self aware, because every person on the planet would need to know what he/she wants. It also would stop technological progress, because all the rules that allow for interaction between people wouldn't apply anymore (because everyone has their own rules), so in the end humankind would be doomed. Everyone is being ruled by the same (non human) being (the second option) is probably what humankind is trying to achieve in one way or another. It's either the believe of a higher being called god, or the believe that there's no higher being and that humankind itself has to create this higher being (using scientifical methods) which we could call Deus ex Machina. If such a thing existed then everybody had something in common they would believe in and said higher being would be the ultimate truth. If something went wrong it would intervene and everybody would be happy, because it would always do the right thing and everybody knows that. But can we consider that freedom or is it just a nice sounding description for slavery? In the end humankind would be doomed without even knowing it. That's of course an utopia assuming that humankind would want to survive to the maximum time given by nature and basically means that its only downfall is some disaster caused by external occurances (the sun implodes, a meteorite crashes into Earth and destroys everything, aliens invade, etc.), but as it is an utopia it's likely not gonna happen. So if we can't survive for the maximum time given, what's the minimum we can get? And that's were it gets difficult. How do we need to save the world, so that we can survive as long as possible, without being doomed because of too much, or not enough freedom? If we look at all the countries in the world, everyone of them has their own believes on what's freedom and what should be morally right and what not. Sure, there are a couple of things every country has accepted as right; mainly because without this consensus, interactions between countries would be even more difficult or outright impossible to achieve. In a way you could say the state in which we are stuck is a mix of the two above utopian views, which, as stated, ultimately lead to our doom. So what do? Honestly, I'd say, just leave it as it is and be done with it. Live happy as long as everything is still bearable (or not). But as this is a discussion, let's just do it for the sake of argument: If we want our existance as humankind to be as long as we can get it, we _need_ better communication between all the countries. There's no way for education to spread, no new ideas to spout, no new and better (as in saver) technology to develop, if half of the world (just an exaggeration, so don't take it too serious) is stuck up on their horses, thinking they are right and everyone else is wrong. You can create the ultimate cure that heals every illness that exists, but it won't help, if people refuse to listen. And always keep in mind that the others aren't the only ones who cause problems, because maybe they don't listen because they are afraid of something you could do. For some odd reason, lack of communication seems to always be the source of all problems...also I must apologize in case of my post being fuzzy, but it's late and I tend to lose myself in my own thoughts really often xD |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
The problem is, the system is catering mostly to two people: 1) politicians and federal officials and 2) big corporations. This is why I can not say that America has a free market system, because the government is actively putting out big business subsidies, bailouts, bans on certain products (look up Tesla cars and you'll see what I mean) and other things that ensure oligarchies and stifle the very competition that leads to more innovation. Their in each other's pockets, benefiting each other, whilst leaving small-to-medium businesses and other people with what they can scrounge up. It's called cronyism. |
Quote:
I think the major problem with our version of capitalism is that what we're getting doesn't match what we're being sold in the slightest. In the ideal capitalist system, at least as I understand it, your economic success is supposed to be determined by how much effort you put in and how much you accomplish. The harder you work and the more you get done, the better off you are. But our system actually enforces the opposite concept: it's incredibly hard to work your way up if you start at the bottom and it's incredibly hard to lose your position if you start at the top. That's not how it's supposed to work. I don't propose to know where it's broken or why, or how to fix it. I'm not an expert in economics, and plenty of people who are experts in it spend a lot of time bickering about it and don't seem to get any closer to an answer. I do think that it is fixable, though. I don't think getting rid of capitalism altogether is the right way to go. I think that the idea at its core can work as intended, it's just that there are too many people invested in having it not do so. But I don't think other systems would necessarily work better. I don't think there's any evidence that other economic systems are any less open to abuse. The grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence. I do think there are good ideas in every major economic system, though, and I think that we shouldn't be so obsessed with being purists, adhering strictly to the tenets of one or the other system. I don't see any reason why we can't take good things from every system and come up with something a bit better. |
Quote:
Quote:
that's something you're obviously aware of but you're phrasing it like capitalism was the first system to extract those aspects out of mankind's labour human nature today is used as a justification for capitalism by capitalism negative aspects of society have always existed before capitalism, but capitalism perverted it and turned the human nature argument into the ultimate defense mechanism for itself as you can see, human nature can be changed, it can be exaggerated, it can be changed over time it can't be changed enough so that greed and jealousy and w/e are eliminated, but it can be tweaked enough to serve a system as need be on a base level/on paper, turning aspects of life we don't care for (greed, envy, etc the stuff you mentioned) into a profit system sounds nice who wouldn't want to make money but as the common argument against communism goes, it only works on paper you could argue that capitalism has worked as it still thrives, but ultimately it is the pillow smothering the world today and justifying it makes you the hand pushing down on the pillow but, i am no better, as There Is No Such Thing As Ethical Consumption Under Late Capitalism we're all complicit whether we like it or not Quote:
there was a study by princeton released earlier in the year that spells out that america has been an oligarchy for many a decade now ergo, about as far from socialism as you can get |
Quote:
And if anything "works", it's the Nordic social democracies of northern Europe, incredibly high standards of living coupled with universal healthcare, high social mobility, and welfare. It's a synthesis of a market economy with a "welfare state" and their model works incredibly well - they enjoy more freedoms than most of the western capitalist economies. |
I remember replying to this same topic long ago and my perspective still remains the same.
If we're to 'save the world' we need to address its problems at their roots. Poverty? War? To eradicate them we need to deal with their source; lack of food, lack of infrastructure and their own sources. We can forever trim the problems off but they'll always grow back unless we kill them at their stem. What that stem is though, I don't know. |
I really like how this thread took a broad topic and hammered out what the question really is asking and then pursued the discussion down a certain path, because you can't talk about everything at once.
It looks like we're talking about saving the world by changing the dominant economic system, but I don't think that'll do much. A socialist economic system can be just as industrialist and polluting as a capitalist one. I think Alex is on point, though. Humans are really the only ones with the power to destroy - get rid of us and there'd be no risk of us forsaking our responsibility or failing to rein our power in, would there? And besides, without any humans, there wouldn't even be the question of having a world to save, because who would be here to think it? It seems that most people in this thread believe what the world needs saving from falls under the umbrella of human misery. |
Quote:
Quote:
Speaking from my own personal experience (and I know the flaws regarding this kind of data gathering, don't bother pointing it out) living in the Netherlands, consistently ranked one of the happiest nations on the planet; but what actually goes into that calculation, and who determines the levels? NL is a good country, sure; but it still has very deeply entrenched racism, and I'm not just talking about Zwarte Piet. There are many social issues (especially with accomodation) despite the extensive effort provided towards the (seemingly) excellent social benefits. |
To save the world, one must ask what is there to save?
We can't use the term "world" for everything, what we really mean is Earth. Of course we are responsible for destroying our Earth, and saving it is a really long term project. We've have so many years of hurting the Earth (of course there are programs and communities that like to stay "green" as you would say it). The first thing I think we have to create is "Earth Peace" among all current Living things on the Earth (not just humans). The second thing would have to be saving the Earth from our own destruction (no littering, no smoking, etc.). Stay safe, stay warn, and most importantly stay happy! Peace! |
Quote:
And I'm talking strictly about social and welfare programs, compared with those seen in western capitalist economies. I frankly do not care about Denmark's large carbon footprint, I care about their healthcare and education models more, and what that could mean for other growing countries looking to enhance their own. Those two things can help solve some of the world's problems we've been talking about. Climate change and carbon emissions are a huge problem as well - we need to worry about the United State's and China's emission policies (As the two largest polluters) before we address the smaller offenders. Maybe update or enhance the Kyoto Accords and get the US/China/India on board with tougher emission caps. |
I wonder if robotics could be the way to improve the world, with an economy where the jobs people don't want do or where workers would normally be exploited would be automated, and the results of the production (i.e. the profit made) put into state funding to fund services but most importantly a citizen allowance (that people would get), meaning that people would only work for their own passion rather than because they need the money.
People could focus on their own interests thus increasing their health and well being. Also Politics would have to be on a volunteer basis rather than as a means for people to make politics a career. Also Education could be presented as self improvement rather than a means as an end (i.e. to enter the world of work). Also an overhaul of the economy to prevent things like decent housing being out of the reach of large groups of society. Another necessity is to prevent rapid population growth. |
The good ol' fourteen points by Woodrow Wilson.
|
Quote:
|
Save the world? Well, the best way is to perfect space cocolonization and head toward the stars, leaving those who wish to mend the earth to stay here. I do not believe in world peace, and I believe wars will happen between humans forever, so why not just but a few light years between us. Don't let different planets interact, and now we have saved the world of earth at least.
It would be great to unite the world under one government, but that won't happen, people are too patriotic, racist, or set in the past. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Everybody is so caught up in the destruction of things. Killing all humans will save the environment, the earth will be engulfed in the suns flames, or all humans die eventually why bother. I personally tthink it should be our goal to shoot off into space and explore. |
Human beings are greedy, arrogant and stubborn creatures. Whether we admit it or not we
1. All want more than we have 2. All think we are right 3. Oppose change and refuse to yield or even acknowledge some of our flaws. If you disagree see my sources, every war ever. So if by the "world" you mean human society, then I think that there's no saving it unless somehow you can change human nature, something that we developed over thousands of years as a means for survival. I think the best we can hope for in that regard is to find some temporary peace in the world before all hell breaks loose again. I think the best ways to achieve this are 1. Education - We need to learn more about the world and more about each other. We need to learn more about how political choices affect us and other people, more about different religious and political groups, more about history and philosophy. We also need to start spreading education more evenly throughout the world. Education should also be cheaper to allow more access to higher education throughout the world. 2. Nuclear Disarmament - Nuclear weaponry needs to go away and soon, one day someone is going to press that button and then everyone else will press their and then there will be no human civilisation to sae. 3. Distribution of Resources - Through either socialism or free trade, it doesn't matter so long as everyone has what they need to survive. Then people can do what they wish with their resources and if that makes them more or less successful it is on them. If by the "world" you mean the Earth -which is a lot more noble than trying to save the problem, but I'm too self-preserving to admit i-- oh... anyway. If you mean the Earth, humanity is finally starting to take steps in the right direction. We are researching alternatives to Fossil fuel, we're making conservation attempts and interfering with the environment less and most people are educated about climate change (YES IT IS REAL. Just take one look at the drastic changes in Australia's weather in recent years... you know that bug continent/country/island right below the hole in the o-zone layer.) We're a long way off but if we continue along that road, especially continuing to research clean energy there's a chance. Personally I'd love to see a combination of the two things I just mentioned - spend less money on war, political endeavours and out-of-control capitalism and more on education and the environment. Personally though, I don't see any of these changes ever happening and certainly not in my life-time. Most scarily though is that I'm not sure there's any point in trying to save the world, morally I feel like there is but logically I know whatever we do is just temporarily putting off the world's fate; neither our society nor the Earth will last forever regardless of our action. Edit: Sorry if this is a bit jumbled or rambly, I'm half-awake but can't sleep. |
Quote:
|
Eh, I'm still not sure how I feel about social democracy.
It sounds good, but I'm really skeptical. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:01 PM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.