What would be your vision of a better humanity?

The hard argument

It's always a hard argument to make, but the essential question, as I see it, is where would we be if we devoted to space exploration the resources, including paranoia, that we give to what our fellow human beings have possibly, maybe, devised while we weren't looking.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know, I used to think as you do. But then I examined my assumptions. Where did I get the idea that the world was over populated? And there are, of course, going to be people here, whether or not I make children. What if only enlightened and aware people decide to not have children? Who does that leave having children?

It's in no way a scientific sample, but even a cursory look at this web-site will give you a creepy idea of what I am talking about. Some of the best minds on this site are well past their child bearing years, and they haven't had children. Yet, the people that ARE having children? They don't even have PC's. lol

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You bring forward an excellent observation, Esotericist. There are some who have voluntarily decided not to contribute further to the population of the planet, while others who may not even be cognizant of the status quo are having children perhaps beyond their means to provide for.

'Planned parenthood' requires education, self-control and diligent attention to appropriate birth control measures. Then there is the matter of at least one major religion which takes a dim view of any form of intervention.

I have lived on the land and observed what happens to the predator population during the years immediately following the cyclical crash of the snowshoe hare population. It isn't pretty, and during those years the predators become a nuisance and a hazard as they come into the towns and find food any way they can, including grabbing pets right off the leash while being walked.

It is ever the way when resources become scarce.

One would think that as an intelligent species we would not allow ourselves to follow a similar fate of over-expanding our habitat, but I'm beginning to question just how far-sighted mankind actually is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Without a world government that can really do what's needed, when it's needed, those of us who are farsighted can't really do very much. The fact that humans don't change much unless they are forced to by circumstances doesn't bode well for this planet. But what do I know, I'm only a forum pessimist.

 

The global population explosion is over.

Fertility has dropped from a global average of 5.5 children per couple to about 2.5 today. Population growth is continuing due to the fact that the previous generation had all those kids, and the new generation is now at childbearing age, while the old generation has not yet decided to die off.

Details can be obtained from the most expert demographers in the world, at the United Nations web site. http://www.un.org/popin/

Their prediction is slowing growth till about 2050, at which the world will reach its maximum population of 9 to 10 billion. After that, it is likely that global population will fall somewhat.

You can debate whether that population is too much, but it is pretty much inevitable. Personally, I have enough faith in human ingenuity to believe that we will cope, without destroying the planet.

 

I agree you are a pessimist.

Humanity is far more capable than you give it credit for. We have passed through numerous serious problems, and we either have solved, or are on the way to solving them all.

Pesticide poisoning in the 1960's? We moved to low toxicity and biodegradable products. Ozone depletion? We moved off CFC's and the ozone layer is reforming. High homicide rates 1000 years ago? We introduced better judicial systems and better policing and the rate dropped to 1% of what it was. Human fertility of 5.5? Now 2.5. Human life lost in war? Now way less per capita than it used to be.

Humanity has problems still to work on, such as global climate change, but we have begun to tackle that also.

The world has become a much better place for Homo sapiens. For example : average life span used to be 25, and is now 75 to 84 in all developed nations. This reflects much better health care. Even the number of people starving has fallen by a large amount. Once, half the human race had no food security. Now the number who know that they will not go to bed hungry is nearly 6 billion out of less than 7 .

Our species is actually very, very clever, and enough people have strong social ethics to ensure that humankind is actually progressing, decade by decade.

There is no need for pessimism, my friend.

 

Yes, I agree with this. While I may not live long enough to see it, I do foresee that social ethics will become more dominant as a tool of society. I hope this leads to better sharing and distribution for the world's resources, so that no one need die of hunger. I also foresee that technology will make borders redundant and people more aware of social injustice and political manipulation.

 

You'd have to change the fundamental attitudes of humans - the lies, the selfishness, the greediness and corruption etc. Theoretically possible, but never going to happen.

 

A person is good. But people are stupid.

Monroe Dortrine all the way.

 

I love solitary beaches and natural habitats; there are a few of them left in the world. Have you ever looked at a big city, with all its smog, pollution and destruction of beautiful ecosystems and wonder how the hell did it come to this? I surely have, and I feel extremely sad just by the thought of it.

Your question is one that resounds in me, since this is one doubt that constantly dwells in my mind. But I don’t think one as an individual have to worry to pass our genes to next generations in order to improve the race

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I don’t think I’m that special either, the world can survive without my descendance.
I think that in order to truly make a difference in this regard, one should only have children for non-egotistic reasons; and I have yet not found a person with this mentality. So the possibility of me having children is not only limited by the fact of awareness of overpopulation, but also, I wouldn’t want to have a kid just because that would satisfy “my” or “her” ego.

 

Do you truly believe that? The root cause of having many children can be linked to education, but with an increasing rate of poverty and miss-education, I don’t see a short-term end of human proliferation. Just maybe in the so called developed countries, but those are just a few aren’t they?
And this de-evolution is strengthened by the fact that the distribution of riches is based on the greed of under 1% of the world population.

BTW, the development of a country should not be measured by its material gain, but by the average state of consciousness of the individuals.

 

What do you mean by "consciousness"?
How do you measure it?
Presumably you're talking about whether the population is awake or asleep...

 

It is difficult to define “consciousness”; but you could say is the “natural morality” of a person. It is the very observer or the capacity of observation, perception applied with intelligence. It is the capacity to enjoy life as it is. Some characteristics of consciousness are: emotional intelligence, creative intelligence, intuition, insight, compassion, etc.
In a higher scale, it could be measured by the behavior of a culture towards its integrants and the level of happiness, creativity, distribution of resources, criminality and preservation of human rights (including the rights of those who violate other people’s rights).

Off course this is difficult to measure, since a “standardized morality” would need to be universally established in order to compare; and this directly collides with religion beliefs and cultural differences. I really don’t know how to reach conciliation on these differences.

But you cannot say that to measure the material aspects of a society is the best way to measure if a country is developed or not, just because it is way easier to measure. By this standard alone, a civilization that would be self-destructive could be easily interpreted as “developed”, but it is obviously not.

 

In other words some nebulous concept that you have.

I think the word you need is "impossible".

This is nonsense: if you can't measure at all the "standard" (i.e. your "consciousness") then it is, by definition, worthless as a measure, let alone "not best".
And we measure what we can measure: that's why we go by material aspects.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why not?
For one thing you're using the word "developed" in a sense not intended by the term in these circumstances.

 

Agreed.

Our thin veneer of civilization but masks a clever exploitation of the many to the benefit of a few. Exporting raw materials and jobs to other nations to take advantage of cheaper labor while creating hardship on one's own soil, and further importing resources from those poorer nations at a lower cost to compete with domestic resources is a very clever shill game.

Fear and greed. The only two marketable commodities, sold under a variety of 'brand' names.

 

I share most of your point of view here FR, but history has taught us that the more materially advanced a civilization is, the more it is driven by greed and lucrative motives. How do you think this would be reconciled with the preservation of natural habitats, and the wellbeing of all living beings? How can you build a city without killing the natural inhabitants of the land it is build upon?
Life has a very fragile equilibrium, and if we keep building cities as we are, we will destroy that balance as we have been doing exponentially as time passes.

I’m not against materialism, but I’m against materialism that opposes life; and they seem to be antagonistic, based on the characteristics of greed, hatred and injustice that prevail in the human mind.

 

Since the word “consciousness” alone makes some scientists frown and growl; let’s just stick with the expression “natural morality” then.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If you say “economically developed”, or “materially developed” I would not be arguing about this. But since the word “developed” alone seems to be used as “material development”, that’s one of the aspects where we go wrong as a society.

Let’s just use an analogy based on individuals to express this difficulty:
Would you say that a rich, greedy, destructive suicidal man is somehow more “developed” than a poor, joyous, creative artist?
The rich man could be referred as being more “economically developed”, but it seems to me that the artist is more “developed” as a whole human being, even without the material possessions.
It helps if the artist has some money to be physically comfortable, but that doesn’t make much difference to his quality of being.

 

My highlight.

I have seen no objective empirical evidence to say that advancing a civilisation means more evil motives. There are plenty of individuals in primitive societies who are quite, quite evil. That is a major reason why those groups have such a shockingly high rate of death from male on male violence.

 

True, but these ancient bad habits combined with high-tech = trouble for all.