It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


If you could save the world ..... would you?

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Social problems result from scarcity. When a few nations control most of the world's resources, there are going to be international disputes no matter how many laws or treaties are signed. If we wish to end war, crime, hunger, poverty, territorial disputes, and nationalism, we must work toward a future in which all resources are accepted as the common heritage of all people.

Our problems cannot be solved in a society based on money, waste, and human exploitation. Today, money is used to regulate the economy for the benefit of the few who control the financial wealth of nations. Unless the underlying causes of planned obsolescence, environmental neglect, and outrageous military expenditures are addressed, we are bound to fail. Treaties, blockades, boycotts, and the like used in the past have not worked.

Many believe that ethical standards and international laws will assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment.

Earth has plentiful resources. Rationing resources through monetary control is dysfunctional and counter-productive to survival. Today, we have highly advanced technologies but our social and economic development has not kept up. We could easily create a world of abundance without servitude and debt through the creation of a global, resource-based civilization.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by Epitaph25]

posted on Dec, 2 2009 @ 11:51 PM
It's said that the world in it's current state is only supposed to support a maximum of up to 1 billion people. We currently have over 6 times this.
With all the different cultures, all the different religions, all the different moral views, it would be very hard to come together to help benefit all.

We - currently - are a species based on hate, greed, and over all self destruction (whether for our selves as a individual, or as a species in general.)

I would -not- save this, if I had the option.

I am not saying I'd destroy it, but I would not do anything to continue to let us live on. In my current mindset, I see humanity as a plague or cancer on the earth. We do more to harm it and each other (Not to mention the other species.) than help. I feel we'll end up offing our selves somehow, causing a major issue for the planet (as we'll no longer be around to maintain the systems and structures we've created, which will over time malfunction and cause destruction). After time, the world will recover, and things will go a lot smoother, and possibly come to the state where the 'experiment of humanity' can be retested.

To this point, I see humanity as an experiment, really. In my eyes, we were a test, to see how a group of 'unguided sentient beings' would react if given the resources and means of advancing a civilization. Think of it as an ant-farm on a planetary level. I doubt who ever (God, extraterrestrials, what ever.) is conducting this experiment will be trying to do it again - as it seems to have been a failure.

TL;DR - No, I would not save the world and humanity if I could, but I would not doom further it either.

Left this out in the original.
Assuming the world could be saved, we would have to be united. All countries and peoples united under one banner, one currency, one political system. This highly reeks of the 'NWO' and what the current belief of what the 'Anti-Christ' plans to do.

An attempt to better our selves like such could easily become a way to damn our selves.

[edit on 2-12-2009 by LysanderFPX]

new topics

log in