What is the biggest problem facing humanity?

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

Mach said:
The notion that stability and peace would help the most to me, is bad. It's what all the dicators and ruling tyranical single party government say. Yeah, yeah, we're corrupt, we stifle all individual freedom, but hey, we bring peace and stability! Trying to "fix" peace or stability seems a lot like trying to treat symptoms rather than the underlying illness.

I would prefer a culture of freedom. Economic, political, along with sufficient education to allow a majority of people to understand that freedom, and act on it.

A "culture of freedom" is a meaningless term without control - control so that people don't get the kind of freedom you don't want them to have, like the freedom to kill anyone they can. So people form governments and governments are given a monopoly on violence to enforce each society's wills. There's no real end and beginning between governance and peace and stability - one causes the other all the time - a tyrannic government brings instability, and instability often results in various groups grabbing power through violent means. To end that vicious cycle, we have to stop the fighting and bring the various groups together to share power and bind them to a governance system.

Corruption is very much tied to culture, it's found for example that countries with French origin system have more corruption than those with civil law systems. It's something that retards progress, but not as much wars can.

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

cmakaioz said:
If I were to throw all the major problems into one big basket, I'd say that the biggest problem is the normalization/acceptance of violence as an appropriate means of resolving conflict.

People are starving...NOT because they won't or can't work, but because they are forced to live under systems in which most of the worth and application of what they produce is stolen from them, and then (due to purchase-based access) we end up with people who work full time (more hours than they would as hunter-gatherers), and yet still end up in poverty.

People are ignorant...NOT because the won't or can't learn, but because elite interests who benefit from people having a grossly distorted impression of of the world maintain such a system.

People are sick, and dying in huge numbers to preventable disease...NOT because we lack the resources or knowledge to prevent or cure such illness, but because the coercive economic system places private profit above need, and so wherever the two collide (which is often), profit tends to prevail at the expense of life.

and so on...

The key challenge with the acceptance of violence is that there is a massive double-standard involved...street-level violence is widely condemned or recognized as unethical...but SYSTEMIC violence is given largely a free pass or (in the case of military actions) even lionized.

Military violence is given a free pass depending on who's the perpetrators - currently it favours the countries with the strongest military, and moral force in the world.

And what's the solution? Forced distribution? How do you make it work?

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

radcen said:
I voted peace & stability as it is the closest to begin correct, but even that answer is incomplete.

Q: What is the biggest problem facing humanity? A: Humanity.

Human nature. Inherent greed, whether it be for money or power or both. There's always been, and there always will be, somebody that wants the wealth and/or power of their entire society. And there always has been, and there always will be, a larger number of people that are either unable or unwilling to tell them 'no'. And for everybody who wants wealth and power, there is always at least one who wants the same wealth and power... hence wars, civil strife, disagreements, and so on.

Our globe runs the gamut from a somewhat civilized form of disagreement in that there are at least elections and reasonably peaceable changes of power, to warlord-driven societies with virtually no societal structure, to everything in between. The bottom line is that nobody ever all agrees on anything, and humanity cannot focus on itself as a result and for it's own good. "Live and let live" is a wonderful idea, but unrealistic as long as humanity and human nature exists as it does.

Example: Years ago during the Rwanda civil wars I heard a farmer interviewed on NPR. He said that he planted crops, and one army came along and burned his crops... for reasons he never was really sure of, but he suspected it was done so to prevent the other side from having access to them. He replanted, and a couple months later the other side's army came along and did the same thing, and for essentially the same reason(s). This happened three or four times before he finally gave up and stopped planting altogether.

I have read, and I think this is very plausible, that our planet can grow more than sufficient food to feed itself. More than we need (at present), actually. But, it is politics and the such that prevents proper growing and/or distribution... hence, famine and starvation result. And all for what? Because some greedy power-hungry a-hole is willing to sacrifice large portions of their own people just so they can gain the wealth and power they crave.

It's amazing how often the a-hole feel that they are just protecting themselves. People in power get unsecured about their own security, afraid that they will lose their position, and wondering who's going to grab their power next. There are those who are secured enough to overreach themselves too, but it's still amazing how some look at killing a whole village as just destroying their enemy before the enemy comes for them and thus entirely justified.

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

Kandahar said:
But the reason corrupt governments even worry about stealing water/food is because it's in such short supply. In this country, it doesn't even cross our minds that the government would steal our drinking water, because water is so abundant it's virtually free, so there wouldn't be any need to steal it.

They aren't stealing because those things are in short supplies for them, they steal it so they can sell it and make money which they use to send their children to Europe or the US and provide themselves with luxuries. You don't imagine that your government will burn down towns that hold different religious beliefs or support the other party either - and it's not because there are no differences.

Just like with democracy, I think the causal link between water and stability is far stronger in the opposite direction. Lack of clean water is frequently a CAUSE of conflict, whereas conflict itself is rarely the primary cause of lack of clean water (although it can certainly exacerbate the problem). IMO, providing people with clean water is the most important because it addresses the root cause of many of the other things: For example, 50% of the global disease burden is caused by lack of clean water; poverty and lack of education are often caused by people having to spend the majority of their day gathering water from miles away; conflicts are often fueled by water shortages (e.g. Israel/Palestine, Sudan/Chad, Somalia, Pakistan), etc.

Do you seriously believe that water is the root cause of the ongoing conflicts in Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Pakistan right now? I think you are trying to revise the facts to suit your argument.

Kandahar · Apr 28, 2012

nonpareil said:
First of all, India is not entirely stable or peaceful, there are pockets where there's periodic violence. In fact, given it's societal structure, a lot of people in the lower class and women are subjected to abuse, meaning a large section of society do not have security. Ghana is not a good example given its successive military coupes.

Well that's my point, it's exceedingly rare for a country in dire poverty to enjoy peace and stability. India and Ghana are the only two I can think of which even come close, and as you pointed out, they have their problems too. This suggests to me that poverty is the primary cause of conflict, rather than the other way around.

Question: Do you think these countries would have been worse or better if there had been a full fledged war or armed struggle?

Obviously worse off; I'm just pointing out that poverty usually causes conflicts. The causal link in the opposite direction exists, but is much weaker.

If material well-being leads to peace and stability then one would surmise that when a society's standard of living rise, it's trajectory will continue upward, and yet, almost every society is the past has fallen after reaching greatness - why is that?

I'm not sure what societies you are referring to, or what you mean by "fallen," but very few societies have had their standard of living drop significantly after reaching what we think of today as middle-income status or high-income status. And the ones that do typically have their own idiosyncratic reasons: South Africa (HIV/AIDS), Argentina (extremely bad governance), Russia (alcoholism). Generally, most societies that fall even further behind are those which are already stuck in poverty traps.

A lot of Asian African nations were actually on a path to doing well right after WWII with improving infrastructures, and yet many of them fell apart during the cold war - why is that?

I don't know which countries you're referring to. But presumably some combination of conflict caused by external powers and/or bad governance caused by external powers. Both of which have largely receded since the end of the Cold War. Most conflicts in the world today are civil wars, rather than international wars.

I have experienced countries after wars, and in my personal experience, you need peace and some semblance of security in order to build a life, and then the rest will follow. Infrastructure like water, energy, even housing, needs to be maintained, in a war or armed conflict, people think about getting to safety first, the water plant breaking down is the least of their worries. In a war, you can't build water purification plants, highway to deliver food, or power plant and so on, but assuming you can, since there's no law and order, those resources will be controlled by the people with the most gun power, and if there are rival armed groups, the violence become destructive pretty quickly. Either way, the majority of people suffers.

You might think education is key, but people care about safety before education. Dead people don't learn. Furthermore, people who are educated are sometimes the worse perpetrators of war crimes - a lot of the Communist leaders in 20th century were well educated. Look at the US, with all the educated people in the government, with the resources for intelligence gathering and so on, they decided to start 2 wars that costs hundred of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and still leave millions miserable.

None of this is wrong, I just think it fails to grasp why conflicts begin in the first place. If conflict is the "root cause" from which all of those other problems stem, then it would just boil down to the personalities of individual leaders (and therefore be nothing more than the luck of the draw as to which countries find peace and which go to war). I think that this approach is too "in the weeds" and ignores the broad causes of conflict.

If water, food and energy will bring peace, then you have an easy formula for Afghanistan and Iraq - but that wasn't the case, often wars beget wars, until one group of eventual winners arise or they learn to share the what's left.

Neither Afghans nor Iraqis have sufficient water or energy, and Afghans don't have sufficient food either.

Kandahar · Apr 28, 2012

nonpareil said:
They aren't stealing because those things are in short supplies for them, they steal it so they can sell it and make money which they use to send their children to Europe or the US and provide themselves with luxuries.

Right, but they wouldn't be ABLE to sell water to provide themselves with luxuries, if it were plentiful. If water was as abundant everywhere in the world as it is in North America, then it would cease to be a cause of corruption and conflict, because it wouldn't be worth enough to fight over.

Do you seriously believe that water is the root cause of the ongoing conflicts in Israel/Palestine, Somalia, and Pakistan right now?

It's certainly a big component of it. Take the Middle East, for example. Both Israel and the West Bank receive their water primarily from underground aquifers and/or the Jordan River, and are located in an arid climate. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Israel often diverts more than "its share" (as the Palestinians see it) of the water before it ever reaches the West Bank.

Additionally, it promotes conflict in less direct ways. Less available clean water means more disease, more time spent gathering water (instead of doing something more productive), and less time spent in schools. These things, in turn, cause more poverty...and a poor, uneducated, sickly population often leads to violence.

I think you are trying to revise the facts to suit your argument.

earthworm · Apr 28, 2012

FreedomFromAll said:
We should get whats inside our own borders in order before we fantasize about how we could help the world.

This I do not know about...completely.
A nations level of civilization can be retarded by neighboring countries lack of development.....by this I mean morals and ethics.
Mexico is an example.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 28, 2012

earthworm said:
This I do not know about...completely.
A nations level of civilization can be retarded by neighboring countries lack of development.....by this I mean morals and ethics.
Mexico is an example.

Are you generalizing the entire Mexican population? I have a good friend that lives in Mexico there certainly is nothing wrong with his or his families morals or ethics.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 28, 2012

cpwill said:
collapsing birth rates in the first world.

Seriously?

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

Kandahar said:
Right, but they wouldn't be ABLE to sell water to provide themselves with luxuries, if it were plentiful. If water was as abundant everywhere in the world as it is in North America, then it would cease to be a cause of corruption and conflict, because it wouldn't be worth enough to fight over.

So many logical flaws here:

1. How many conflicts are started over water of all the conflicts in existence?
2. What is "abundance"? Why can't you sell something that is in abundance? There's no limit to the number of people who can use a software, and yet Microsoft can still sell it and make billions.
3. What make you think that water is "abundance" is America?
4. Why would something in "abundance" cease to be a cause of conflict? Many of the wars in Africa was a result of their richness in resources, not a lack there of.

It's certainly a big component of it. Take the Middle East, for example. Both Israel and the West Bank receive their water primarily from underground aquifers and/or the Jordan River, and are located in an arid climate. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Israel often diverts more than "its share" (as the Palestinians see it) of the water before it ever reaches the West Bank.

And yet water is the not the sticking point in the negotiations, land and settlements are, why is that? Is your theory then that if those two countries have access to a secure water supply, they will cease to fight over land and settlements issues?

Additionally, it promotes conflict in less direct ways. Less available clean water means more disease, more time spent gathering water (instead of doing something more productive), and less time spent in schools. These things, in turn, cause more poverty...and a poor, uneducated, sickly population often leads to violence.

Except when a conflict resulted in a poor, uneducated sickly population who can't then build infrastructure for water, food or energy. Can you honestly deny that conflicts destroy infrastructures and that you can't build infrastructures unless the fighting stops? If you don't have the infrastructure to delivery food, water and energy - then what is the point of your arguement?

The role of water shortages in global conflict is well-documented:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Water war leaves Palestinians thirsty
IRIN Africa | SOMALIA: Fight over water, pasture sends hundreds fleeing | Somalia | Conflict | East African Food Crisis | Food Security | Refugees/IDPs
Sucking dry an African giant, Lake Chad | OurWorld 2.0
UNEP: Water, Conflict, and Cooperation

I can cite you cases of serial murderers in the US, it doesn't make any arguement that serial murderers are the main cause of death in America true. Anecdotal evidence are just that: anecdotal evidence.

nonpareil · Apr 28, 2012

Kandahar said:
Well that's my point, it's exceedingly rare for a country in dire poverty to enjoy peace and stability. India and Ghana are the only two I can think of which even come close, and as you pointed out, they have their problems too. This suggests to me that poverty is the primary cause of conflict, rather than the other way around.

Then you are putting the cart before the horse.

Obviously worse off; I'm just pointing out that poverty usually causes conflicts. The causal link in the opposite direction exists, but is much weaker.

You have not shown that it's weaker, or what cause what. Vietnam, under the French they were better off resource wise then when the American left, and yet they didn't have a conflict afterward and successfully rebuild their economies. Singapore - poor in all resources - no conflict and is now richer per capita than the US. China - went through communism, starvation, but with unification and a change of direction, become the second biggest economy in the world. Cambodia - a socialist country in the 60's with good infrastructure, war came, and everything was destroyed, after 1993 election, they had a coupe in 1997, but otherwise conflict free - their economy is growing rapidly and people are enjoying better standard of living. In fact, almost every country in Asia sees that pattern, after the conflicts, they rebuild their economy and are better off despite resource issues.

I'm not sure what societies you are referring to, or what you mean by "fallen," but very few societies have had their standard of living drop significantly after reaching what we think of today as middle-income status or high-income status. And the ones that do typically have their own idiosyncratic reasons: South Africa (HIV/AIDS), Argentina (extremely bad governance), Russia (alcoholism). Generally, most societies that fall even further behind are those which are already stuck in poverty traps.

The society I referred to are past societies like the Egyptian, the Chinese, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Europeans in a way. The rose to become the dominant civilisation in their geography and then fell as a results of conflicts. And you are not having a full grasp of the history of Asia or Africa if you think countries never went backward, many have during the cold war. SA never reached the kind of standard of living enjoyed by the Europeans and the American, not for the blacks anyway.

If you think "bad governance" is somehow different than conflicts and instability, then I think we are talking past each other.

I don't know which countries you're referring to. But presumably some combination of conflict caused by external powers and/or bad governance caused by external powers. Both of which have largely receded since the end of the Cold War. Most conflicts in the world today are civil wars, rather than international wars.

"Civil war" doesn't mean there's no external interference - Egypt, Libya, Yeman, Syria reminds you of anything? Not to mention Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. War are more complex than just "international" and "civil". In fact, what transpired in SEA is exactly what happens today, external influence pushing factions they support into power resulting in internal conflicts which look like a civil war.

None of this is wrong, I just think it fails to grasp why conflicts begin in the first place. If conflict is the "root cause" from which all of those other problems stem, then it would just boil down to the personalities of individual leaders (and therefore be nothing more than the luck of the draw as to which countries find peace and which go to war). I think that this approach is too "in the weeds" and ignores the broad causes of conflict.

You are making logical jumps again. It doesn't boil down to "personalities of individual leaders", the actions that eventually lead to war are complex with many parties involved. Libya was under Ghadaffi for many years before there was an "uprising" and he was deposed, many factors had to come together for that to happen at that exact time. Anyone who claim to know the root cause of any war is simplifying the issue - like you are doing by trying to claim that water is the root cause of most conflicts in the world. People are still debating about WWII and how it could have been prevented - if it's down to Hitler alone, then the answer would have been easy - if he existed, war WWII was inevitable - but it's not that simplistic.

Neither Afghans nor Iraqis have sufficient water or energy, and Afghans don't have sufficient food either.

Right, so the American can just ship lots of water and food there and conflicts resolved. Don't even need the guns anymore.

Kandahar · Apr 28, 2012

nonpareil said:
So many logical flaws here:

1. How many conflicts are started over water of all the conflicts in existence?

What do you mean "started over water"? The vast majority of ongoing conflicts on the planet today are caused, at least in part, by lack of access to clean water, and/or disputes over scarce water resources.

2. What is "abundance"? Why can't you sell something that is in abundance? There's no limit to the number of people who can use a software, and yet Microsoft can still sell it and make billions.
3. What make you think that water is "abundance" is America?

Microsoft has intellectual property rights to its software; no one has intellectual property rights to water. Water is in abundance in America because it's so cheap that it's essentially free. We all waste an enormous amount of water without even thinking about it, because it's essentially valueless in America. I could literally turn on every sink in my home and leave it running for the entire day, without incurring any financial consequences (except possibly a flood.

) Even in the most arid part of the country, the American Southwest, no one ever goes without water...at most there are regulations about watering lawns and the like. Compare that with the situation in many parts of the world where water is scarce...and people have to spend hours every day walking miles to and from the nearest water source to make sure that their families have enough water to drink. The economic cost of this cannot be overstated, nor can its role in conflicts and disease.

4. Why would something in "abundance" cease to be a cause of conflict? Many of the wars in Africa was a result of their richness in resources, not a lack there of.

But resource conflicts are inevitably fights over things of value. Take oil or diamonds, for example. If those commodities suddenly became worthless, no one would fight over them anymore. Fighting over oil might be quite profitable (at least for the winner) if it sells for $100 per barrel...not so much if it only sells for $1 per barrel. The same goes for water, albeit on a different scale. If water was as abundant everywhere as it is in North America, it wouldn't be a source of conflict anymore because there would be enough for everyone and the economic benefits of fighting over it would be sharply reduced.

And yet water is the not the sticking point in the negotiations, land and settlements are, why is that? Is your theory then that if those two countries have access to a secure water supply, they will cease to fight over land and settlements issues?

Not in such a direct way, no. But if they both had access to a secure water supply, it would lead to greater economic prosperity in the long term and reduce the economic incentive to fight over ANY issue. Conflicts tend to brew in regions where the potential economic benefits of fighting are high, and the economic costs of fighting are low. This is why impoverished countries like Yemen are so violent, while its wealthier neighbor Oman is much less so.

Except when a conflict resulted in a poor, uneducated sickly population who can't then build infrastructure for water, food or energy. Can you honestly deny that conflicts destroy infrastructures and that you can't build infrastructures unless the fighting stops?

No?

If you don't have the infrastructure to delivery food, water and energy - then what is the point of your arguement?

That lack of water causes conflict much more than conflict causes lack of water.

I can cite you cases of serial murderers in the US, it doesn't make any arguement that serial murderers are the main cause of death in America true. Anecdotal evidence are just that: anecdotal evidence.

It's not just anecdotal evidence, I can provide similar stories about nearly every conflict in the world today. As of now, Wikipedia says there are 9 major ongoing conflicts in the world today in which there are large numbers of fatalities: Mexico, Colombia, North/South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. With the exception of the first two (fueled mostly by drug trafficking), there is a strong element of water scarcity in all of them.

Perspective: Sudan – Land of Water and Thirst; War and Peace | Circle of Blue WaterNews
Millions Facing Misery in Somalia Famine | Water | AlterNet
What If Yemen Is the First Country to Run Out of Water? | Ecocentric | TIME.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/world/middleeast/03iht-letter.html
Iraq water crisis could stir ethnic clash - UPI.com
Afghanistan: threat of water shortage through groundwater depletion - IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Pakistan

Kandahar · Apr 28, 2012

nonpareil said:
Right, so the American can just ship lots of water and food there and conflicts resolved. Don't even need the guns anymore.

I know that was supposed to be sarcastic, but there is a great degree of truth in that statement. Getting people access to water/food (not so much "shipping" it, as that's too expensive to do for water) is typically a far more effective method of resolving conflict in the long term than bringing the guns.

nonpareil · Apr 29, 2012

Kandahar said:
What do you mean "started over water"?

I mean exactly that. Are you moving away from saying that water is the root cause of conflicts?

The vast majority of ongoing conflicts on the planet today are caused, at least in part, by lack of access to clean water, and/or disputes over scarce water resources.

Claims without evidence means nothing.

Microsoft has intellectual property rights to its software; no one has intellectual property rights to water.

Which doesn't change the fact that having a limitless something doesn't mean that the thing can't be sold for a lot of profits.

Water is in abundance in America because it's so cheap that it's essentially free. We all waste an enormous amount of water without even thinking about it, because it's essentially valueless in America. I could literally turn on every sink in my home and leave it running for the entire day, without incurring any financial consequences (except possibly a flood. ) Even in the most arid part of the country, the American Southwest, no one ever goes without water...at most there are regulations about watering lawns and the like.

So to you abundance means you can "waste a vast amount of it without thinking about it" and "without incurring any financial consequences", you should read about the water situation in America, it's not as peachy as you think. There are a lot of issues with regards to water for irrigation in California. Instead of thinking that you have access to water because it's abundance, it is more the case that you have access to it because your country is not mired in conflicts so that your government can maintain a good water management system that allow everyone to have access to clean water and institute effective rationing system when there are severe scarcity.

Compare that with the situation in many parts of the world where water is scarce...and people have to spend hours every day walking miles to and from the nearest water source to make sure that their families have enough water to drink. The economic cost of this cannot be overstated, nor can its role in conflicts and disease.

Actually you have overstated it. Water can be moved to the people who need it - ever been to Abu Dhabi? Often the reasons it can't be gotten to those people is because there's no infrastructure to do so - now guess why there's no infrastructure to do so.

But resource conflicts are inevitably fights over things of value. Take oil or diamonds, for example. If those commodities suddenly became worthless, no one would fight over them anymore. Fighting over oil might be quite profitable (at least for the winner) if it sells for $100 per barrel...not so much if it only sells for $1 per barrel. The same goes for water, albeit on a different scale. If water was as abundant everywhere as it is in North America, it wouldn't be a source of conflict anymore because there would be enough for everyone and the economic benefits of fighting over it would be sharply reduced.

Can you tell me of a place where water costs $100 per barrel?

Not in such a direct way, no. But if they both had access to a secure water supply, it would lead to greater economic prosperity in the long term and reduce the economic incentive to fight over ANY issue. Conflicts tend to brew in regions where the potential economic benefits of fighting are high, and the economic costs of fighting are low. This is why impoverished countries like Yemen are so violent, while its wealthier neighbor Oman is much less so.

Right, so now you have moved from water being the root cause of conflict to something else. Do you want to go back and read what you were argueing before? If all a country needs is a secure water supply to achieve "economic prosperity", then again, the solution to the world's problem would be very simple - guess why it's not - why it's so hard to build infrastructure for water, food and energy when the technology and capability already exists?

No?

That lack of water causes conflict much more than conflict causes lack of water.

Then you have moved away from your own OP - which asked: what is the biggest problem facing humanity. If water is the solution then just give everyone water. Ah, but how do you give everyone water when there are fightings in the country? You can't. So now what's the first problem you've got to solve?

You are also being loose with the term "water", first you talked about clean drinking water, of those where conflicts destroy the infrastructure, it definitely causes the lack of them. In fact, even developed countries face the lack of them during natural disasters, and yet no war has resulted as your theory would suggest.

It's not just anecdotal evidence, I can provide similar stories about nearly every conflict in the world today. As of now, Wikipedia says there are 9 major ongoing conflicts in the world today in which there are large numbers of fatalities: Mexico, Colombia, North/South Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. With the exception of the first two (fueled mostly by drug trafficking), there is a strong element of water scarcity in all of them.

Perspective: Sudan – Land of Water and Thirst; War and Peace | Circle of Blue WaterNews
Millions Facing Misery in Somalia Famine | Water | AlterNet
What If Yemen Is the First Country to Run Out of Water? | Ecocentric | TIME.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/world/middleeast/03iht-letter.html
Iraq water crisis could stir ethnic clash - UPI.com
Afghanistan: threat of water shortage through groundwater depletion - IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
Pakistan

It is anecdotal evidence, you are not establishing causes for these conflicts but merely finding articles which talk about water shortage in those countries when there are already conflicts occurring in them. Correlation is not causation. We know the cause of the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq since the US itself were the one who brought its soldiers there to start those conflicts, are you saying the US went there to get their water? We know Somalia is a lawless country with military control, we know why Yemen and Syria are mired in uprising, we know that South and North Sudan are fighting over access to oil.

I repeat my earlier comment: you are revising the facts to fit your arguement instead of seeing them for what they are.

Kandahar said:
I know that was supposed to be sarcastic, but there is a great degree of truth in that statement. Getting people access to water/food (not so much "shipping" it, as that's too expensive to do for water) is typically a far more effective method of resolving conflict in the long term than bringing the guns.

It was to illustrate a very important point: that those things didn't happen. Why didn't it happen? For all the money that the Americans spent bringing soldiers and equipments, maintaining their bases in those countries, they could have built many a water plant and gave seeds to farmers - and yet they couldn't do that - because when they went out, they get attacked. We know how to build water plants, we can transport water over long distance, we can now make sea water into drinking water at a viable cost, we can plant enough food to feed everyone in the world, but that all means nothing because those things don't get to the people who need them most because of political and military conflicts.

haymarket · Apr 29, 2012

The single biggest problem of the 21st century is how do we find a constructive purpose for billions and billions of people when we no longer have an agricultural based economy or even an manufacturing based economy which needs them any longer?

cpwill · Apr 29, 2012

Jredbaron96 said:
Seriously?

yup, seriously.

cpwill · Apr 29, 2012

nonpareil said:
Why? Are they the only "humanity"? What's wrong with people from other "worlds" carrying on the human race?

Economically: The First World is the engine of the rest of the Globe. When they crash, they drag the rest of the world with them. If Venezuelans suffer, the rest of the world sends aid. If the EU, Japan, and US all collapse, much of the rest of the world starves.

Culturally: The First World also has heavy overlap with the set of cultural assumptions that I would like to see spread. Individual Liberties, Equality for Women, Property Rights, Free Markets, Free Speech... these are not things that the rest of the world takes for granted, and as the society that upholds them dies, they will subside.

Kandahar · Apr 29, 2012

cpwill said:
Economically: The First World is the engine of the rest of the Globe. When they crash, they drag the rest of the world with them. If Venezuelans suffer, the rest of the world sends aid. If the EU, Japan, and US all collapse, much of the rest of the world starves.

I agree in principle, but I think this ignores the fact that the "First World" is not a constant; more and more countries are reaching a level of economic development at which they could reasonably claim to be part of the "First World"...and therefore even if birth rates continue to decline, it doesn't necessarily mean that fewer people will be able to contribute to the well-being of humanity if prosperity continues to spread to other countries.

A generation ago, the only developed countries were Japan, Western Europe, and the English-speaking nations. Today, that category would also include the Asian Dragons, the Baltic states, Central Europe, Israel, Chile, Uruguay...and arguably Argentina, Malaysia, and some of the Persian Gulf countries. In another generation, it could conceivably include most of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and China. So even with a declining population in Europe and Japan, this loss could be more than compensated elsewhere, and more people than ever could be contributing to the world's economic engine.

Lethargic Aptitude · Apr 29, 2012

haymarket said:
The single biggest problem of the 21st century is how do we find a constructive purpose for billions and billions of people when we no longer have an agricultural based economy or even an manufacturing based economy which needs them any longer?

We that would take getting people out of the 20th century first. The problem has been that people believe that factory jobs are the only good jobs. Through out the industrial age right up to the present factory jobs have always been unstable. There have always been large lay offs.

The real problem that we face is educating people to realize that they do not have to work for someone else directly. But well sheep will be sheep.

cpwill · Apr 30, 2012

Kandahar said:
I agree in principle, but I think this ignores the fact that the "First World" is not a constant; more and more countries are reaching a level of economic development at which they could reasonably claim to be part of the "First World"...and therefore even if birth rates continue to decline, it doesn't necessarily mean that fewer people will be able to contribute to the well-being of humanity if prosperity continues to spread to other countries.

A generation ago, the only developed countries were Japan, Western Europe, and the English-speaking nations. Today, that category would also include the Asian Dragons, the Baltic states, Central Europe, Israel, Chile, Uruguay...and arguably Argentina, Malaysia, and some of the Persian Gulf countries. In another generation, it could conceivably include most of Eastern Europe, Latin America, and China. So even with a declining population in Europe and Japan, this loss could be more than compensated elsewhere, and more people than ever could be contributing to the world's economic engine.

Except that the sub-replacement birthrate has combined with large social safety net programs to create a situation in which the largest members of the First World are insolvent. The EU, Japan, and possibly the US aren't going to ever-so-slowly-slide into a situation of the-West-and-the-rest; they are going to go through a period of bankruptcies which will cause massive economic destruction and upheaval. The integration of the global economy (and the part those nations play in the global supply chain) ensures that they will be wrecked as well.

lpast · Apr 30, 2012

As an admittedly an uneducated individual...about world economies even ours....I see a huge change that has begun and is going to worsen for the USA...we are being overtaken in everything...our economy is underthreat...and we did it to ourselves...lets get this right WE...our Corporations have created our biggest threat it in the near future..CHINA...out of greed..we took them from eating dog to having more employed working class than we have....I find that to be the worst of corporate greed...they have put millions of americans OUT OF WORK not paying taxs and needing asst...they made millions more americans UNDER EMPLOYED and some needing pubic asst...by employing chinese and giving china our good paying manufacturing jobs...THEN THEY WHINE its entitlements killing the country...SS and Medicare...that is garbage.
We need to stop foriegn aid...at least put a moratorium on it until WE are financially sound...we need TO STOP all the loopholes that allow corporations to pay nothing in taxs on billions we need to RAISE the capitol gains for guys like Romney who make millions upon millions in investments ..and pays less % than me in Fed Tax..."HE NEEDS A TAX CUT"??? please give me a break...he doesnt create jobs...he no longer even works... he needs to pays AT LEAST as much % as middleclass...and we need reasonable entitlement reforms....we do not need to raise taxs...we need to STOP all the nonesense with the rich and corporate interests manipulating everything and whining they need more....
Americans are becoming more aware everyday the game the Teaparty right of the GOP is playing and the conjob they are putting out there guys like RYAN will fail.....they are whining with their pockets bulging...Stories like APPLE....GE and Romneys actual paid tax rates are starting to resonate....

Empirica · Apr 30, 2012

"What is the biggest problem facing humanity?"

BIG GOVERNMENT

Other (please describe) - Drastically scale back and limit government power to it's absolute bare minimum and demand accountability.

Jredbaron96 · Apr 30, 2012

cpwill said:
Economically: The First World is the engine of the rest of the Globe. When they crash, they drag the rest of the world with them. If Venezuelans suffer, the rest of the world sends aid. If the EU, Japan, and US all collapse, much of the rest of the world starves.

Culturally: The First World also has heavy overlap with the set of cultural assumptions that I would like to see spread. Individual Liberties, Equality for Women, Property Rights, Free Markets, Free Speech... these are not things that the rest of the world takes for granted, and as the society that upholds them dies, they will subside.

Meh; good point for the economic reason.

earthworm · Apr 30, 2012

Empirica said:
"What is the biggest problem facing humanity?"

BIG GOVERNMENT

Other (please describe) - Drastically scale back and limit government power to it's absolute bare minimum and demand accountability.

We would not have this so-called "big government" if man would only behave himself..
Is he ?

earthworm · Apr 30, 2012

lpast said:
As an admittedly an uneducated individual...about world economies even ours....I see a huge change that has begun and is going to worsen for the USA...we are being overtaken in everything...our economy is underthreat...and we did it to ourselves...lets get this right WE...our Corporations have created our biggest threat it in the near future..CHINA...out of greed..we took them from eating dog to having more employed working class than we have....I find that to be the worst of corporate greed...they have put millions of Americans OUT OF WORK not paying taxes and needing asst...they made millions more Americans UNDER EMPLOYED and some needing pubic asst...by employing Chinese and giving china our good paying manufacturing jobs...THEN THEY WHINE its entitlements killing the country...SS and Medicare...that is garbage.
We need to stop foreign aid...at least put a moratorium on it until WE are financially sound...we need TO STOP all the loopholes that allow corporations to pay nothing in taxes on billions we need to RAISE the capitol gains for guys like Romney who make millions upon millions in investments ..and pays less % than me in Fed Tax..."HE NEEDS A TAX CUT"??? please give me a break...he doesn't create jobs...he no longer even works... he needs to pays AT LEAST as much % as middleclass...and we need reasonable entitlement reforms....we do not need to raise taxs...we need to STOP all the nonsense with the rich and corporate interests manipulating everything and whining they need more....
Americans are becoming more aware everyday the game the Teaparty right of the GOP is playing and the conjob they are putting out there guys like RYAN will fail.....they are whining with their pockets bulging...Stories like APPLE....GE and Romneys actual paid tax rates are starting to resonate....

"Entitlement reform ..... increase the retirement age for many to 70, not coal miners of course, nor others in hazardous occupations.
Income tax rate reform....raise the rate that the millionaires pay to ...say...50%..Try to keep the rates as fair as possible..
I have little against "millionaires", but billionaires ? that is going too far...
IMO, our economy would be in better shape if people did NOT overcharge for their goods and services..

What is the biggest problem facing humanity?

Which of these would do the most good for the world?

Providing everyone in the world with access to clean water

Providing everyone in the world with enough nutritious food

Providing everyone in the world with free, high-quality K-12 education

Providing everyone in the world with access to Western-quality health care

Providing everyone in the world with access to information and communication (e.g. the internet)

Bringing peace, stability, and safety to every part of the world

Bringing democracy and freedom to every part of the world

Developing a clean, cheap source of energy that could be produced and distributed anywhere

Developing an effective, efficient transportation infrastructure in all parts of the world

Other (please describe)

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Political Parties = Corruption

Gen 4:10

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Political Parties = Corruption

~Transcend~

Gen 4:10