What are the main challenges facing Mankind today?

[Quetzal]

Just to add to this topic a bit more. I am very passionate about this topic because there is literally no risk. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! We could take 0.5% of the budget from military spending and conduct research that could potentially save millions of lives and this planet. But no, people like Dan stand in the way of progress. They would rather ignore the problem than produce results that generations could benefit from. In my mind, it is one of the most selfish positions to hold. I will not back down, it is too important.

 

[chair]

I do not separate climate change from social unrest. The civil war in Syria is partially a result of extended drought.

 

[patrick jane]

Think. Think hard. If you need a coach to teach you how to think hard, I will do it. You have to alway's (no apostrophe needed - always) think as hard as you can, and right now I can promise you that you have never thought hard in all you're(it's just your - not you're) life for any extended period.

You're post's speak for themselve's(no apostrophe needed - themselves), regardless of what you think your(this time it's you're, meaning you are) saying in them.


DJ

1.0
​

i'm not sure about the coaching gig, to think hard - giggity

 

[Nick M]

Just to add to this topic a bit more. I am very passionate about this topic because there is literally no risk. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! We could take 0.5% of the budget from military spending and conduct research that could potentially save millions of lives and this planet.

Not so. If the government shut down all agencies and only paid checks (mandatory spending from Health and Human Services) we would still be in debt with the same tax revenue.

Socailism is destroying America by design

 

[The Berean]

It's a stupid question. We didn't "create jobs" for hundreds of thousands of years. Instead, we fended for ourselves, living off the land and with the environment. You seem to imagine that todays techno-industrial society is the only possible way for people to live, when in fact, it's only been around for a few hundred years. And it's failing us. A society of "employees" is not a good way for human beings to live. It's inherently neglectful and exploitive.

We need to find new solutions. Probably solutions that balance individual employment with self-sustaining extended family farms, cottage industry, and large socialist community endeavors.

Some population projections show that the human population will climb to about 11 billion by 2100. You really think that self-sustaining extended family farms can feed 11 billion people?!

 

[Quetzal]

Not so. If the government shut down all agencies and only paid checks (mandatory spending from Health and Human Services) we would still be in debt with the same tax revenue.

Socailism is destroying America by design

Irrelevant? Government shut down has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Nick M]

Irrelevant? Government shut down has nothing to do with my post.

Good thing you watched that video. lain: Keep that head in the sand and don't learn anything. :thumb:

 

[kmoney]

while you idiots are talking about climate change
there will be another 911
there will be another 2008 financial collapse

wake up

I know book recommendations don't mean much on here but if you have time check out 'Collapse' by Jared Diamond.

 

[patrick jane]

What do you think are the biggest 2 or 3 problems/challenges facing Mankind today?

people. images. and people

 

[kmoney]

Doesn't this assume that we are already at our planets optimal climate? Why are we so sure of this?
Again, your assuming that the sea level is at the right level now. Its like we woke up 1 day, and assumed that the way thing's were on the day we woke up, is the right way, and that sound's for all the world amazingly like radical fundamentalist reasoning going on right their.
I'm just a little shocked that you accept the way thing's are today as the best possible way. How do you know this?

I wouldn't say it's about maintaining 'optimal' climate, or 'optimal' sea level. The point, it seems to me, is about the negative effects that scientists are confident will happen if we continue on this trajectory. It's about the real things that we see happening now and can get worse, not about some 'optimal' climate that we want to maintain (whatever 'optimal' climate would mean on a global scale). Why should we simply let things happen and force ourselves to adapt if we can try to do something about it?

Having said that, I don't mean to say that we should completely ignore the potential economic effects of any changes we try to make. We have to be aware of both sides. However, I find it interesting that your concern for the 'world of value-creators' along with your lack of confidence in what the scientists are saying leads you to choose to do nothing when I could flip that around on you. How do you know that the changes we'd try to enact would be a burden that 'value-creators' can't handle? If you're so cavalier in saying that people in a hot climate can simply move, why aren't you just as cavalier in saying businesses could adapt to the new regulations? Do you have some proof that the economy could crash?


Not believing in the coming destruction of climate change is one thing, but I'm shocked at how flippant you are about the possible consequences of our current path.

 

[PureX]

Some population projections show that the human population will climb to about 11 billion by 2100. You really think that self-sustaining extended family farms can feed 11 billion people?!

I think population control will have to be part of the solution. Along with a return to a more holistic agricultural lifestyle, along with more cottage industry, along with robotic manufacturing, along with large scale socialized business enterprises that are in the national interest. And probably some solutions we haven't thought of, yet.

 

[PureX]

Well are we talking about the threat posed by climate change, or by global nuclear war? Their not the same thing.

No, we are talking about the problems facing mankind. And specifically about our inclination to annihilate ourselves and perhaps all life on Earth. Climate change is just a symptoms of our insanity. Huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons is another. Our inability and unwillingness to control our own population relative to our resources is another. And so is the idea that we can poison and pollute our own environment indefinitely without catastrophic consequence.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Ironic considering you are dismissing the entire case based on nothing but your own opinion...

To be clear, here is precisely what I'm dismissing: that its a big deal. Just so we're clear.

...If you were in charge...

What are you thinking? Heres what I think your thinking. Your thinking that your Obama and I'm Putin and your not going to let Putin get away with making a reasoned case for denying everybody Putins authorization for any sort of global, 1-world initiative on climate change. Pardon my French but frigg climate change. I don't care. The level of concern here doesn't rise above the level of concern roused by moon landing denier's and 9/11 conspiracy's. They'res just nothing to see here. Climate change is a non-issue. Migration. Ephesus. Its so not a big deal. I'm looking forward to shorter winter's since I'm not much for winter sport's or snowthrowing my driveway.

...you would rather risk our population and this planet so you could "wait and see" instead of at least consider the possibility that it could happen.

Your hysterical, in the archaic sense. Listen: "wait and see" and "consider the possibility that it could happen" are the same thing to me. Does that help you in any way? Probably, you cannot synthesize these two together; the thesis, and antithesis. Dilbert called it "actively waiting." Sometime's, especially when all act's of commission bear considerable risk, act's of omission that are entered into with cognizance and with deliberation and caution --as well as ambition and calculated risk --are the more prudent and wise choice. Even, the most ambitious of choice's. Sometime's doing nothing is like running fullback dive's up the middle during garbage time. You still progress, even though your not running you're two-minute offense, when you do nothing. Sometime's everything has simply been done already, and doing nothing on vacation is the most aggressive investment of time in you're future that you can make. At some point the farmer and the worker's are just waiting for the kickoff. At that point, they'res really nothing happening. But we'd be abject fool's to insist that we stuff every last minute of inactivity with "something more productive." We should only be more productive when we're excited about the harvest. Not because someone's whippin' our sunburnt back's ever so slightly more than they were before, like jockey's prodding there mount's. Convince me that this is what we should be focusing on, and I'm you'res. I've never been convinced that climate change = doom. If its doom, then its sin that's responsible somewhere, and that mean's we should do something about it. But if its not doom, then that mean's their's no sin here, and thats what it feel's like, and you sound like you want to add to Gods law, that its additionally, on top of everything Hes already told us is sin, its also sin to cause climate change of any kind, even as a careful experiment. I reject that notion flatly. I don't agree with you. This isn't sin.


DJ

1.0​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Bybee, its clear that Quetzal is sharp as a tack. They'res a big difference between that, and what Walter White would call "applying one'self." Thats all I'm saying. Behind the cover of the anonymous internet. Which is exactly what Quetzal is doing.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

Just to add to this topic a bit more. I am very passionate about this topic because there is literally no risk. Zero, zilch, nada, nothing! We could take 0.5% of the budget from military spending and conduct research that could potentially save millions of lives and this planet. But no, people like Dan stand in the way of progress. They would rather ignore the problem than produce results that generations could benefit from. In my mind, it is one of the most selfish positions to hold. I will not back down, it is too important.

Hysterical. Whose saying not to study the matter? I'm all for studying, and we've already begun a century's long experiment and we're now seeing the first result's coming in and its darn exciting! And your seeing the data and your thinking, "We'd better stop this experiment immediately and never ever ever ever ever do it again." I'm just excited that we're getting signal's and not just noise --thats alway's exciting --it in and of itself vindicate's the experiment --the investment, in knowledge.

If we are looking at another ice age in the coming decade's, like looking down the barrel of a gun, I'm going to feel much better that we've got some ammunition to throw at that thing, because I have a feeling that it would make harpooning sperm whale's from a row boat feel like a fairly low risk endeavor. We've now confirmed that we can raise the temperature on earth. Anywhere from low single digit's to maybe even ten degree's. That could be just what we need to avoid the next ice age. And here we would have never known how to address an ice age, without this massive, century-long experiment of our's.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[The Berean]

I think population control will have to be part of the solution. Along with a return to a more holistic agricultural lifestyle, along with more cottage industry, along with robotic manufacturing, along with large scale socialized business enterprises that are in the national interest. And probably some solutions we haven't thought of, yet.

What kind of population control are you referring to? The largest population growth currently is in developing nations.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

I do not separate climate change from social unrest. The civil war in Syria is partially a result of extended drought.

What, drought's are a new thing, man-made climate change cause's extended drought's? Come on. Jacob had to move down to Joseph in Egypt because of extended drought. We also --amazingly --in the same story, see exactly how Joseph managed extended drought's --he stocked food for them in advance. Thats how you managed them then, and thats how you manage them now.

What about those who don't prepare for the extended drought? You prepare for them. We should have seven year's worth of imperishable food for every human being at the ready at all time's. We can't afford to have people starve to death anymore. Its unconscionable.

Hunger. Thats a main challenge facing us today.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Dan Emanuel]

i'm not sure about the coaching gig, to think hard - giggity

DJ

1.0
​

 

[heir]

So you think that practical problems like migrations, terror and war are not really important at all, as they are "affairs of this life"?

I don't worry about such things as it's not why we are here. Most of what is happening is a distraction from the mission. Good soldiers for Jesus Christ must endure hardness (2 Timothy 2:3 KJV).

 

[bybee]

They took only 10%, but they also forbade the adding of fields to fields and a perverse accumulation of wealth among a select few.

Both provisos are good for society.