How to save the world?

[Ayutac]

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?

 

[curiousnathan]

The real question is, what are we saving the World from?

 

[twocows]

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.

 

[Lotus the Cat]

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.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

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.

 

[Her]

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.

don't you think this is excessive at all

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

don't you think this is excessive at all

Humans have shown a liking for things being in more abundance than necessary though, don't you think? Look at our population, our consumption, first world weight averages, insane mortality rates, and a whole bunch of other things that speak of greed and gluttony. Humans can't get enough of what they don't have. I personally think someone needs to cut their ego down a bit and let them know they're not king shit of jack shit, really. They'd get real frightened at being knocked down a peg.

 

[Her]

Humans have shown a liking for things being in more abundance than necessary though, don't you think? Look at our population, our consumption, first world weight averages, insane mortality rates, and a whole bunch of other things that speak of greed and gluttony. Humans can't get enough of what they don't have. I personally think someone needs to cut their ego down a bit and let them know they're not king shit of jack shit, really. They'd get real frightened at being knocked down a peg.

human greed is hardly a case for annihilation of any kind

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

human greed is hardly a case for annihilation of any kind

I never suggested it was, though. And besides, I'm sure you could argue how it and six other really bad habits of ours would make for a really well-rounded case to be smudged off.

 

[Magic Christmas Lights]

I never suggested it was, though. And besides, I'm sure you could argue how it and six other really bad habits of ours would make for a really well-rounded case to be smudged off.

Wrath, greed, pride, lust, sloth, envy, and pride? I don't understand why you think people deserve death for these things. First of all, in moderate amounts, most of these aren't even bad and can in fact be adaptive. If you didn't value money and attaining money (greed), for instance, then you'd live in a poor environment and be unable to provide for your family. If it weren't for lust, we wouldn't reproduce. The Catholic Church from the 1600's didn't have a very enlightened world view. This is kind of like saying someone who robbed a convenience store should be executed. The crime doesn't equal the punishment. But you are sixteen I suppose and you'll probably mellow out on this view point as you mature.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

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.

The crime doesn't equal the punishment. But you are sixteen I suppose and you'll probably mellow out on this view point as you mature.

Age shouldn't be used as way to determine one's intelligence.

 

[Alexander Nicholi]

Wrath, greed, pride, lust, sloth, envy, and pride? I don't understand why you think people deserve death for these things. First of all, in moderate amounts, most of these aren't even bad and can in fact be adaptive. If you didn't value money and attaining money (greed), for instance, then you'd live in a poor environment and be unable to provide for your family. If it weren't for lust, we wouldn't reproduce. The Catholic Church from the 1600's didn't have a very enlightened world view. This is kind of like saying someone who robbed a convenience store should be executed. The crime doesn't equal the punishment. But you are sixteen I suppose and you'll probably mellow out on this view point as you mature.

There's a really egregious amount of presumptions made here. I made no statement personally wishing death upon anyone, firstly - it was a general statement that was stated with no attachment. Secondly, I never mentioned a word about those behaviours inherently being "bad", so the subjectiveness of morality falls apart as well. By the way, the slight on my age is really unappreciated. I find it a bit uncalled for.

 

[maccrash]

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.

because I'm sure these people are incredibly reliable sources. one of them is fictional, for christ's sake.

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.

 

[Her]

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

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

because I'm sure these people are incredibly reliable sources. one of them is fictional, for christ's sake.

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.

Have you seen any of George Carlin's stands before? He's well respected by the internet community, because his jokes make sense and should be taken into consideration on what to do. Listening to fictional characters isn't a bad thing, because they usually share the same opinions as the creator and used to spread his or her voice to the readers.

 

[Magic Christmas Lights]

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.



Age shouldn't be used as way to determine one's intelligence.

It doesn't determine one's intelligence, but it does have a big impact on how people form opinions and relate to the world. I never said it determined anyone's intelligence. People have more extreme opinions that may not have been thought through as much or exposed to counter points the younger they are because they have had less time to think about it. Being a teen is also just a time where you try on different roles and views to see which one fits you. That's just how it works.

By the way, the slight on my age is really unappreciated. I find it a bit uncalled for.

I think you're reading too much into my post. I didn't insult your age.

 

[Livewire]

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.

 

[Rogue planet]

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.

The real question is, what are we saving the World from?

Global warming and mass over-consumption of resources leading to the destruction of the planet. A disenchanted society lacking in community values; communities/nations rife with poverty, drug abuse and crime. Systematic exploitation of entire nations/groups of people. Illegal wars across the globe leading to the death of many thousands every year; all for blood money. Take your pick?

 

[Her]

"The world will be saved if we eliminate capitalism!"

well
go on
explain your thoughts rather than making an almost useless post

 

[Megan]

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