It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do We Have a solution for ALL our Problems?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Ok, I wanted to create a new thread based off some of the info or subjects brought up by this other thread….

www.abovetopsecret.com...[/url]

So here we go….Buckle your seatbelts and keep your arms and legs inside the ride at all times…thanks…haha

In that last thread it talked about how revolting humans are and that we do nothing but immoral things to out planet/animals/other people extra. So this makes me ask the question to what can we do to not coil downward in shame that we are killing ourselves and everything else on this planet?

We can come up with a dazzling idea to save the rain forest, help the extinction of polar bears, and help stop global warming, stop the wars, helping reduce the population effects on the world, stopping starvation, creating enough jobs for everyone, helping the homeless, not destroying the ice caps by drilling for oil and finding places to put our radio active waste.

Those are all really big and small problems we have, but they all lead to the major topic we have here. What can we do to fix them all, or can we? If you think of all the ways one can do to lend a hand with one of those above subjects, there are consequences that interfere with one of the other problems we have. So by fixing a problem we’re having, we are adding two new minor problems to an already big problem we have. It’s like taking one step forward and two steps back. We are slowly moving forward, but stepping back at the same time.

I guess my question is; is there really an answer to all the problems “we” presumably create? Can we really have the blissful go lucky life we all dream of? No war, no pollution, no endangered species? Is there a way to problem solve and fix our “mess” with out killing off ourselves? Is it all possible?

Let me know what you think, this isn’t a thread on how atrocious humans are to themselves or the planet… If you’d like to talk about that you can go to the thread I listen above. This is a thread that simply asks for an opinion on whether you think we can conquer all our problems and save ourselves from the destruction of ourselves. What solutions do you have that make it all possible?

Here are some other people’s thoughts on ideas to save the world…solutions…maybe?

Idea 1
Idea 2
Idea 3
Idea 4
Idea 5

Let me know what you think… and any solutions that you think could work....I'm curious..., but I’d love to hear them all!

MissAshley




posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   
As i state in many of my posts...i think the solution is evolving ourselves first by means of Nanotechnolgy, Bioengineering, DNA research, cybernetics, and meditation/spiritualism.....with all that..it would essentially expand our horizions and help us live longer, with us living longer and appriciate life more..then we can proceed to save the world



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
humans did pretty well living in harmony with the planet for 2 million years. it's only the last few thousand years that have seen a change with the quest for technology. i think a global consciousness is the answer and it is coming. it requires a free press and incorruptable world government. we're relatively not too far off imo, but of course things will get worse before they get better.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I most certainly lack the sociological, scientific, political, and ecological knowledge necessary to make even an educated guess regarding this massive question. The best I can do is wager a crude guess based on my own idealistic and somewhat naive hopes.

My suspicion, based on said idealistic and naive hopes, is that solving humanity's woes would require some changes that can be encouraged or inspired legally and legislatively, but others which cannot be catalyzed through official means. Chief among the latter, I suspect, would be for the majority of humanity to embrace or discover within itself a far greater measure of empathy toward its constituents. It is my suspicion that only when we regard the suffering of others as injury to ourselves, will we see a wide scale reduction of suffering and poverty in certain parts of the world.

I do also suspect that some form of genuine globalization would be required for real change to be instituted. Unfortunately, my feeling is that this globalization would demand a selfless and humane evolution, rather than a purely economic and strategic alignment that eventually results in de facto globalization (i.e. the path the world appears to be on now, which may inevitably result in an east/west clash before the sun sets on creation of a global hierarchy.) This means that before the kind of globalization humanity would benefit most from could emerge, rather than the kind many of us fear or have reservations about, changes in the way nations govern themselves and a new interest in the common good of humanity superseding individual national welfare might have to somehow come about, but it would have to take on a form that also precluded the social and economic backsliding of the wealthiest nations to offset the suffering of the poorest nations. Otherwise, it seems unlikely to me that the wealthiest countries would accept the changes.

Safeguards would also have to be put in place preventing the global economic elite from gaining control of any future, seemingly benign, global system. By "global economic elite" I refer to those presently suspected of governing through economic means "behind the scenes," if it should be proved that this is indeed the case (I do not which to cast judgment without proof.) It is my feeling that the move toward globalization must not be fueled by greed, economics, or the lust for power and control. I doubt anyone will disagree that power has the capacity - guaranteed or not - to corrupt. Control of, essentially, the world, must be a shared responsibility shouldered by as much of humanity as possible, rather than a limited number of administrators. It is likely that the global economic elite, if it exists as theorized, would seek to co-opt any move toward a free global system that prized humanity and wellbeing over profits and power, hence the need for such safeguards in my opinion.

One of the things that could occur at official, rather than interpersonal levels of society, which I feel would also be required for real change to transpire, is more universal and comprehensive education. Until the majority of humanity has access to the same knowledge of itself and the universe in which it flourishes, humanity will remain unable to reconcile its various and often conflicting perceptions of reality.

Finally, and most dauntingly, the majority of humanity would likely be required to commit to some degree of (at least in the short term) suffering - even if it was limited to fiscal responsibility, responsible energy and food consumption, etc. - in order to ensure prosperity and health for the majority of the world's population on a fair and balanced basis. This means that the most powerful would have to be willing to sacrifice some of their power, the most comfortable would be required to sacrifice some of their comfort, and the biggest consumers would be required to cut back on consumption to a certain extent. It would require some hardship that many in some countries have never known, at least in the short term. This is, in my mind, the most difficult and unlikely step that genuine change would demand, and it is why I believe that greater utilization of humanity's capacity for empathy and collective compassion would be essential. People would have to say to themselves, "this is hard and arduous, but as long as steps are taken to ensure my health and general wellbeing at least, I am willing to endure it for the sake of other human beings half way around the world who I have never even laid eyes on." This is, sadly, something few in the world today appear capable of committing to (and with good reason, unfortunately.)

I have great faith in humanity. I believe more strongly in humanity's ability to change and to better itself than anything else in this world. I believe everything I have mentioned in this post, and more, are possible. Unfortunately, unless some unknown or unforeseen variables exist somewhere on the horizon, I do not see them as particularly probable at this point in time.

I doubt we can ever rid ourselves of all problems whatsoever. Life appears to be geared toward overcoming challenges. However I do feel that we have the ability to remain much further ahead of the curve that we are today, or ever have been.



posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   
You have voted AceWombat04 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConfederacyOfUnity
As i state in many of my posts...i think the solution is evolving ourselves first by means of Nanotechnolgy, Bioengineering, DNA research, cybernetics, and meditation/spiritualism.....with all that..it would essentially expand our horizions and help us live longer, with us living longer and appriciate life more..then we can proceed to save the world





posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:56 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
I most certainly lack the sociological, scientific, political, and ecological knowledge necessary to make even an educated guess regarding this massive question. The best I can do is wager a crude guess based on my own idealistic and somewhat naive hopes.

I do also suspect that some form of genuine globalization would be required for real change to be instituted. Unfortunately, my feeling is that this globalization would demand a selfless and humane evolution, rather than a purely economic and strategic alignment that eventually results in de facto globalization (i.e. the path the world appears to be on now, which may inevitably result in an east/west clash before the sun sets on creation of a global hierarchy.) This means that before the kind of globalization humanity would benefit most from could emerge, rather than the kind many of us fear or have reservations about, changes in the way nations govern themselves and a new interest in the common good of humanity superseding individual national welfare might have to somehow come about, but it would have to take on a form that also precluded the social and economic backsliding of the wealthiest nations to offset the suffering of the poorest nations. Otherwise, it seems unlikely to me that the wealthiest countries would accept the changes.


You have a lot of good points in your post and good ideas; though, this makes me wonder....Do you really think that in a time of distress that man kind would put oneself aside and be selfless to help another? Would we all pitch in and stand on the sidelines and cheer and the needing on? Giving them the necessities they need to live and survive in assurance of our own survival? Even there there is no sense of selflessness. We are helping someone else in attempt to save ourselves. Would those who think they are well off, or high and mighty stand on the side and watch the "lower" class destruct themselves? Leading tot the destruction of the "higher" class?

There is no action on this earth or that we do that isn't self important. Everything we do is in some way benefiting ourselves in some way.

I personally would like to think that we would be so selfless to help out those who are in need, but I know that it would be impossible.

Great post though AW!

MissAshleyDear




top topics



 
0

log in

join