posted on Jan, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
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
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,
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.