Solving Humanity's Problems

[caveman]

I tend to think overpopulation isn't nearly as big of a problem as overconsumption. And limiting consumption (as opposed to limiting how many people there are), is a more practicable solution anyways.

For example, in the next few decades, the population will peak at 9.2 Billion. That's a high number! We might need to cut back. We could then try cutting the population in half giving us 4.6 Billion within x number of generations. Or, we could cut the amount each person consumes in half. Both will essentially have the same effect as having a world population of 4.6 Billion.

So to me, the real problem here is inefficiency. We could have 9.2 Billion people in the world and still have beautiful forests, coral reefs and clean skies. But we can't have all that while producing 4 lbs of trash every day.

[Sempu]

Yes, it comes down to the size of the individual footprint. Look at the average population density in the UK in 1950: Huge compared to the USA even now. But people clustered in small towns and villages. The green belt was sacrosanct. Even when surrounded by huge fields and commons, the people lived mostly in postage stamp houses. This pattern is still apparent; just look over the country from Google Earth.

World population may even be lower than today's in 50 years; check out the green line at World population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

[Human No More]

I'd say it is unlikely, considering the fact that everyone needs to be able to survive. For that reason, in order for people to survive and to avoid having to dedicate the entire planet to that, population in effect must be reduced. For once, China has the right idea (although as I have said before, I would be in favour of making the rights to a child transferrable, so someone who didn't want one could give or sell the right to someone who wanted multiple, without causing excessive growth).

[caveman]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I'd say it is unlikely, considering the fact that everyone needs to be able to survive.

I don't think surviving is the issue. I mean, you could have 1000 Sng'oi tribespeople thriving off of very little and making less impact than 1 average american. On a large scale, 8-9 Billion heavily efficient and minimalistic-impact people might be able to thrive and impact less than the 7 Billion we have now.

[Human No More]

Perhaps, but the population density is far higher than any ancient human cultures. Living without all the advances there are would effectively mean the destruction of entire ecosystems for farming.

[allroock123]

In trying to look at the roots of a huge number of humanitys issues one issue comes up over and over "Human Tribalism" with so many groups pushing for global oneness, one must ask , what are the underlying issues driving a wedge betwean peoples (Yes even a serious issue betwean native peoples cultural groups) at issue, an instinct the Human
animal just like any other pack creature need to claim territory and protect Cultural idenity
despite the fact we all have far more in comon than we realise, at its root Tribalism instints and customs from the past drive people from diffrent "circles" apart and make it very easy for a small group to instill the fear of another without much question,what do people think , could bringing awareness to the "human tribalism" mechanism help resolve
social justice issues.

[Human No More]

I'd say it's something that has to be moved past, because it is the same principle on a larger (national or regional) level that causes the vast majority of the world's problems today.

[Clarke]

IMO, not quite all of them. The others come down to people not being rational enough.

[allroock123]

There are two issues I feel are at the roots under humanitys fundamental issues ,And there is a group addressing the first issue , The first issue is "Our illusion that We are "Separate" and it all comes down to how our culture views the world .

Many people today talk about a feeling of disconnectness from the world and a feeling out of place, There is an unexamined assumption that is deeply effecting our entire modern world view, "We Are Separate" from everyone and everything, this assumption shapes virtually all of our perceptions and actions, I am going to directly Quote some of the discussion in Awaking theDreamer, as an example But I feel this is one of the big issues effecting society and our fundamental humanity it effects how our peoples understand there world view and our feelings of disconnectedness from nature and society and how looking at others worldly viewpoints can help us understand the issues our people are facing in the world today, Avatar addresses this issue sublimely incultural differences between the Na'Vi and Humans (RDA)

"Over the Century’s the story that’s been commutated in our modern world consciously or unconsciously has been that the world operates like a "huge" machine made up of separate parts like a "big clock"for the past 400 years the scientific tradition has been trying to take the"clock" apart and figure out how it works so we could master it and use it for our own purposes. This "mechanistic view" merits that instead of "seeing" the inner connection in between things, there was a way of analyzing what people where coming into contact with and taking it "apart" so what evolved was kind of "fragmented" view of the natural world and we became hypnotized really with the power that came out of this technology and we lost what is one of the most fundamental connections to our humanity our connections to "each other" and our connection to the mystery of the universe. (second speaker steps into view) There is a fundamental misconception that "We" are "separate" We are learning that is "not true" If there is only "one" Then whatever I do to you, I do to me, If there is only one, Whatever I do to the air I do to me, If there is only one, Whatever I do in society Is what I am acculy doing to myself, doing to my family, doing to my children (Change of view on a sunset over the ocean) Spiritual traditions have long taught separation is an Illusion Buddhist Teacher Thich Nhat Hanh puts it this way,, We have the word "To BE", But what I propose is that a word to "Inter-Be" Because it is "Not possible"To BE alone, to BE by yourself. You need other people in order to BE, You need other beings in order to BE. not only do you need father, mother but also,uncle,brother,sister,sociaty, "But" You also need Sunshine,Water, Air, Trees, Birds, Elephants, Polar Bears, Bats, and so on. So its imposable to "BE" by "yourself" truly alone, You Have to "Inter-BE" with everyone and everything else, And therefore, to "BE" means to"Inter-BE " increasingly people in the modern world are listening to the voices of Native Peoples who’s message has always been that all things are"connected" (Native American speaker Tom Goldtooth Speaks ) "We use another terminology called me-da-key-yay-oh-wa-say" (please excuse me if my sounds like wording as wrong no disrespect intended) This means"All My Relations" We try and recognize that "We Are Related to Everything" to the animals, to the fish , to the plants , to the trees, to the birds, even the microorganisms ,So the we are all related,( A second female native Speaker Okanagan Author Jeanette Armstrong Speaks) The foundational understanding from my point of view or, Indigenous point of view,is that "you" are a part of that land in a very interdependent way ,"You are a part of that land" Its your body, "Its you" and you can't do things to the land that in the end comes back and destroys "you"(A view of the universe flying through space) This deep recognition of interconnection is supported by the current scientific understanding of the origin of the universe which has shown that all of creation is profoundly connected at the macro and micro level,(Poet and teacher Drew Dillinger speaks) We can see that everything that ever was,, Is ,or will "be" was compressed into a space smaller then a seed smaller then a tear, more minuscule then a molecule, All Space, All Time, and the potential to ever exist started as a single point so in very real sense "science" has "discovered" what native peoples have"known" All along. We are All One ,We are all Connected, We all come from the very same source, everything we see around us has developed from the boiling cauldron of the early earth this sphere of lava that wonderfully gave rise to the sea and the atmosphere and then life’s infiltrate expressions as "Brian Swimme" says the Earth was once molten rock and now sings operas.
(I had a link to view examples to or the full program the free viewing period has unfortunataly ended) Here is a link describing the program (Which is presented for free )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRtuu1byxxA(At 3:40 the Issue of Separation is spoken on)

The issues for this debate:
Do people feel they are disconnected from the natural world and that this issue has its roots in modern society’s separation issues ?

The Kogi peoples of Columbia are about to release a new film "Aluna the mind inside nature, The Kogi Elders called Mamos have stated that our actions that damage the natural world are damaging the underlying web of life something science does not yet understand, or See, This damage to the web of life tying humanity together "May" be effecting the ability for humanity to act as a family and could driving some of our underlying problems , Here is what people are saying,
"Humanity as a whole has come under huge stress in ways we cannot comprehend or "see" this "may" be the cause of the upraise of social discord in society , And many people report a "feeling" of disconnection and loss of their place in the world, If we are damaging the underlying systems "That tie our humanity together" by our actions We may be paying the price in ways our people cannot "see" or understand, this change is stressing our people to the breaking point in some cases and "should not be ignored"

Do people feel there are any facts behind it or just speculation ? If you are interested in what the Kogi have to say
and there film go here, Aluna Trailer. - YouTube


Irayo

[auroraglacialis]

I agree with Tsyal and caveman here for most parts.

There are concepts - not necessarily concrete lifestyles - that exist in ancient, indigenous and aboriginal cultures, that are proven by history to be sustainable. They all used some sort of "technology" that was appropriate but what they did not have was a mindset that promoted linear thinking, perpetual growth or the idea that one can simply take what one needs from the universe. Universally, sustainable cultures in the past honored connection to other beings, to the world and they understood that everything depends on giving as well as taking.

Our modern culture does have these concepts, but they are "hidden" in morality, religions, philosophy or ethics. This would be fine if these things would play a role in what is actually done, which they dont. What rules the world instead is mostly "rational thinking" in the shape of economics and science. These also have a place certainly, but they do not have at the center any ideas of sustainability - instead they are about linearity and growth and progress. This may sound even a bit cheesy, but I think we have to put back ethics and philosophy into our culture as a guiding principle.

There are a lot of technological and developmental solutions to many of the problems. Ways to get more food, more resources, more wealth, more efficiency, consume less, reduce population and the lot - but all of these ideas can only work when they are applied in the right context. And that context cannot be, that because we use more efficient light bulbs, we strive to use more light as a result or because we double the milage of cars, we triple the miles travelled (which is roughly what has happened in the US since the 1950ies). Growth then eats up all the things we throw at it to stop it. To fight food scarcity, the "green revolution" stepped in, but all that it did was to postpone the problem by 30 years, allowing more growth of population and consumption while causeing more problems along the way - and 30 years later we ask the same question about how to solve food scarcity.

The only way out I think is to stop growing. To mature, to actually GROW UP as a species - to leave the childhood phase of growing taller daily while playing with neat shiny toys. One can have a lot of fun and be very creative when grown up. One can also think about loosing a bit of weight to get healthier (reduce population and consumption).

All of this needs a cultural change on a global scale, especially as the cultural narrative of perpetual growth and linear thinking has spread over the globe. I think that eventually this can only be stopped by it failing and everyone witnessing it.

About the "everything begins with the first step" and looking for solutions by our own lifestyle acts. Certainly that has some benefit, but keep in mind that people have been doing "first steps" for the past many decades. People started to turn off the standby mode since it was invented, people bought smaller cars and fluorescent lightbulbs since before most here were born. Yet no global tipping point is reached in terms of real sustainability. So sometimes small steps are not causing a snowball effect but are simply what they are - small minute steps that are overlooked in the overall picture. I am not saying we should not do them - I do many of them - but to hope that they will solve the problem or to pull back to the stance that these are the only things we can do feels disempowering. Yet because of the momentum this culture has, the ways to go up against it are tough. I am considering, that maybe it is worth thinking about what culture and cultural narratives can do. If it is impossible to actually stop a culture determined to grow and consume from doing so, maybe it is possible to change the cultural narratives and plant the seeds of nonlinear thinking, of interdependence and interconnection and stability instead of growth in the minds of people. How could that be done???

Regarding the global unity versus "tribalism" thing - I think that humans are by their nature not made for some "global unity" in the sense that we would manage to see all people everywhere as united. There will always be some that are closer and others that are more distant. So we'd better find ways to manage this natural human behaviour in a way that is positive and allows people to live in their closeby circles (groups, "tribes") but connect these groups in a way that is respectful. This is sort of the federalistic idea that each group retains their individuality and culture but that all these groups respect each other.

[Niri Te]

Humanity for the most part will NOT change until it is FORCED to change, by the planet it lives on starting to fall apart in huge pieces. THEN we will see if there will be enough time, and enough of the planet's ecosystyems still somewhat functional enough for humanity to be able to pull the dying Planet back from the edge of the cliff. If they can't, they GOT what their GREED bought them.
ta Niri Te

[Moco Loco]

I for one don't think we're going to drive ourselves extinct, but that's not really the topic I guess.