Im worried about the sanity of our planet earth!

[DodgyJudge]

Well first lets me explain what im really worried about , our own living planet.

Why would we continue abusing our way of living , why would we use more ressources that we need , why would we need law juridiction when the real criminal are those making those law , why would we try to save our own arse when we cant save the world we living in?


The truth is i dont like humans as it is ... even if somewhat the past seems more dangerous than today , it seems more peacefull in a way that wouldnt be tolered be us the pathetic human of today we are using those "normal" way to live we got today and think it is good as it is and that it need no change at all.

Why would we accept to be controlled be a kings/Queens/CM*/governments/dictators or anything else that want absolute control over mankind that dosnt care about earth at all? (CM* City Mayor)

Why cant we return to the basic after the Great human techonlogy advancing ,
like the way of the 1300-1700's(even their king was almost always there for their peoples listening to them and helping his community) some of course where corrupted as alway... But since human wasnt close to 1 billions in total before the 1950's you can see clearly in a way why people think 7 billion is too much for living on earth 70 years later and we are already 6 Billion more?
What is true is all the ressources those are not infinite and drop way faster than human dying of starvation in africa.

The point of this thread is pure knowledge of what people think should or should not be done for changing the way we live and save our planet before we need to migrate to Mars hahaha.

I think we can stay civilised about the topic no religions please and no stupid ass comment that make no sense , i want trueness so think before posting or dont post at all , but please have some thought on the subject as i think it is an important question about our own big living house and its future!


P.s sorry for my rusty english good read!

 

[kpastel]

It's simple: most on the people are unconscious about what are they actually doing. When you have a certain level of conscience about the life, you start to do the right things, you start being nice with the planet and all the beings livingin here, even the most tiny being in this planet is important.
The only salvation of this planet is most of the people being conscious about what they're doing.

 

[Deleted User]

Corruption has always been around to some extent, and it always will be around to some extent. Leaders in the past weren't any more benevolent than they are today, and kings became kings not because they were well-meaning, but because they owned land and had people willing to work for them to stay on said land. That was how feudalism worked, back in the day. Being a good king wasn't a prerequisite for being king at all, sadly enough.

Also, you seem to criticize local governments for being power-hungry, yet seem to wish for all local power to be centralized onto one person? That seems a bit counter-intuitive.

In the end, I guess, we're all responsible in some way for what happens to our neck of the woods, and completely offloading tasks and responsibilities to talking heads is bound to get us nowhere. A government run by the people requires said people to actually do something, and when times get tough, many may wish for any sort of figure to take their place and make decisions for them. However, fail to pay attention, and you end up with a situation like that in America, where lobbying essentially allows giant corporations to write the rule books, and where people parrot Russian bots spewing flat-out wrong information without thinking to fact-check.

Thinking more broadly, there are a lot of problems that humanity and the planet seem to have going for it in general. I doubt that most, or even some of these problems will be fixed in our lifetime, though I can only hope that humanity will make enough sane decisions to keep itself afloat in the upcoming centuries.

It's simple: most on the people are unconscious about what are they actually doing. When you have a certain level of conscience about the life, you start to do the right things, you start being nice with the planet and all the beings livingin here, even the most tiny being in this planet is important.
The only salvation of this planet is most of the people being conscious about what they're doing.

Problem is, consciousness does not automatically equate to conscience. Unfortunately, there are many organizations out there that are totally aware that they're committing immoral acts, yet continue to do so, for whatever other reasons.

 

[notimp]

Caring about earth is an externality, that isn't ankered in any way to any of the economic models the world is running on. It could actually be argued, that the whole "caring about earth" mantra that was able to form a political movement in most parts of the world (except the US of course), is actually just there as a form of "counter culture", to make people feel better about continuing on in the present system. Thats cynical, but also true in a self fulfilling prophecy kind of way - because none of those parties actually rose to a size where they'd have meaningful intervention potential in regards to the economic system.

In part, because it turns out, that whenever someone wants to save large junks of the rain forest - it mostly creates two jobs and sacrifices about 200. That said - its the right thing to do (green lung, diversity of species), its just not "popular" as in something the masses care about, when push comes to shove.

As for global warming, there is a third tier plan to handle it, which involves geoengineering (be very careful with sources here...), so this is not a "we are all going to die" scenario in the next 50 years, and its freaking hard to make predictions that aim longer than that.

That said, global warming is a thing. Man made also - for all we know (scientific canon).

But whats also a thing is international "dependency", which with the current US "isolationist" orientation (which would have been the same under Clinton, just less swift), and all political alliances being slightly rerolled, causes world wide economic instability - and might be the cause of an up to 20-30% reduction in global nutrition output as a result down the road (instability in several regions, because the US dont care to play "global police man" anymore, also Im no expert, Im just repeating expert opinions). Which is a much more direct issue, causing famins, and by some peoples opinion the largest refugee movements we've seen since WW2 or in history, depending on whos predicting.

Why can't we go back to the "good king" model?

Because our economy is a global one.

Not in the US - as it has juuuuuuust shed its last real dependency in international oil consumption, by turning to fracking and becoming a net shale exporteur, but for pretty much the entire rest of the world.

This not only has to do with manufacturing capacity and resource flow (what should europe produce, if it doesnt has the resources in europe, but in africa?), but also with population age, which influences investment factors... (Japan must be a heavily automated and export oriented economy, or its dead (no young people that could keep the economy going with consumption).

So the "good king of the world" model isn't working (in fact, ask the US.. ).

Another reason why "good king" isn't working, can be seen in Europe (origins of the european union). Good king has the tendency to be followed by "bad king" eventually - and the king next door, also faces economical stresses, but has a populus that believes only in him, form birth to death - so waging war seems like a good route out of some quarrels, and once you've done that, you get hate, anger and retaliation a few centuries down the road, revolutions - because of even worse governmental structures (good king is only one person, government officials arent voted in)... So in some regions of the world this model has turned out to lead to centuries of bloody wars, regardless of the best intentions of everyone involved. The "solution" to that was to "link" the economies of the two major military and economic powers in europe - and give everyone else also - at least a voice on the table. Problem here: This is sloooooooww - and europe is now facing multiple crisis - because of other ramifications, but its acting...

Which brings us to "law".

Law is THE ONLY THING that matters. If it can be uphold. It states "if you do this, there will be ramifications". It also can be changed. But not by the god king, bud (in most western countries) by another "power", that guaranties the separation of state and the judges (legislative, judicative (and executive) power), which is the sole principle, that separates any entity from abusing their actual power without a corrective.

Law also always is "slower" that actual societies needs - but it tends to catch up.

Law is especially needed in international contexts. Its what makes it possible for two (or more) heads of state meeting, reaching an agreement, and having both of them coming from a position, where they can argue, that they can uphold, what they have just agreed on. Its so important, in fact - that you can have entire regions being steered into economic downturns for 30-40 years, or have HK act as a UK colony for 100 years... without anyone in those populations being able to do much about it. Except turn to revolution. (Which never profits the generation that revolts.. (I think)). (International) Law, is the basis for planability - and economic development.

Another one is economic development in itself.

"Nature - and how we treat the world" isn't.

Coming back to the fact, that this is something you let 40 somethings "worry about" when they have too much money and free time. But worrying about it also bootstraps a (slow -) economy, so its fine in itself.

If I've got the figures correct, cattle and domestic animals now account for about 90% of the worlds "mammal" population at this time - and most mammals near human settlements have turned more and more to "night active" cycles - because of noise and light "pollution" alone. No green party is going to change that.

But the underlying message is actually one of "positivity". Dystopian scenarios - are overrated, anywhere - where economies are actually working to some extent. You can look at oil as histories "battery storage, that can't be recharged" - which drives many of todays economies to an outrageous extent, but we are transitioning away from it, because it isn't sustainable.

Worrying about externalities isn't either. Either they get included into the "economic footprint" (f.e. carbon tax), or they dont matter at all.

Apart from having a few people having dance sessions before economic summits - which for sure are very photogenic..

This (+/-) is how the world works.

If you also want to have a look into what "falls into predicting economic developments" - here is a fun, mostly current video:

But also know, that hardly anyone of those experts is ever "right" (and coming from a european position the guy is dead wrong.. ), regardless - the models they are working on are what is shaping actions.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Corruption, btw. is just a political tool/tool of power. People are very "pitchforks and torches" about it - but in the end thats just "a populist feeling". In its essence, it is a political tool.

Also originating from the notion, that "managers" (magistrates, local politicians) arent replaceable, because they get their positions for life - or are "untouchable". (The king/despot model.)

But its also heavily used in international industy - mostly in failed states (the ones, where rule of law isn't independent).

And to some degree even in others (arguing, that political lobbyists are about the same thing, just in different clothing.. ).

"To fight against corruption" is what a political candidate says, when he has no plan what to actually do. You fight corruption, by redirecting the money flow (generating real economies). Good luck Mr. one person, I'll do it, once I get elected...

Having an independent judicial system also helps/is necessary.

 

[notimp]

On the population growth topic - I'd mostly opt not to ponder it too much, because of - reasons, but there are think tanks with public facing reporting on that as well (the Club of Rome being one of the most prominent (please stick to scientific sources, as there are others riding on the emotional "value" of the issue as well - for clicks, or worse.)).

Main issue here is a decoupling between economic growth and population growth, that most of the world didn't see coming. Meaning, in some countries - the poorer populations got, the more children they tended to get (old age/retirement "solution", other factors) which was somewhat unprecedented to that point.

All of the industrial world has the opposite problem, btw. where there is actually a birthrate drop starting in the 70s. (Female reproductive rights, the pill, women going for career opportunities in the work force, retirement systems, people wanting to spend more on themselves and not on their offspring, ...).

Also - as of today we produce 120% of the nutritions that are needed to "feed the world". Still. But we have a distribution problem.

This whole issue has to self mitigate somehow (micro loans, getting women into the workforce, social retirement systems), or there will be new "pressure points" and "busts" (which is why you shouldnt read up on it too much).

Globalization - and raising the global income of the individual, is actually a way to make it a more pleasant transition. genetically modified crops (without DRM mind you), and new food tech, also helps.

But looking at the populist uprising all over the "developed" world, with their "my country first" ideologies, and the new role the US is trying to play, looking into the sky and doing nothing - while investments and intelectual talent floods the country regardless... Isn't exactly helping.

That said - no one reading this, will change their voting behavior because of it.

Also, @ all you organic eating kale loving vegans in your fourties - industrial food (I.e. the Mc Donalds Burger for 1 USD) is what has brought us to 120% nutrition capacity to feed the world. Just saying. (But it isnt regional, and transport routes are long, and transport is expensive. Thats the flipside.)

 

[Cyan]

It's probably not the best view, and it's not well argumented but :

- There's no need to save the planet. The planet will not die or disappear. In millions of years, Humanity will be old story, but the planet will still be there, safe and alive. in billion years it will die due to the sun, should we save the planet from that?
- It's only our resources we need to save, not the planet, or the life, or the nature. and if there's no more resources? life will adapt. at worse, other species will replace current ones. when governement and ecologist says we need to save the planet, it's only themselves and the needed resources they think about. The planet will save itself.

 

[DodgyJudge]

It's probably not the best view, and it's not well argumented but :

- There's no need to save the planet. The planet will not die or disappear. In millions of years, Humanity will be old sotry, but the planet will still be there, safe and alive. in billion years it will die due to the sun, should we save the planet from that?
- It's only our resources we need to save, not the planet, or the life, or the nature. and if there's no more resources? life will adapt. at worse, other species will replace current ones. when governement and ecologist says we need to save the planet, it's only themselves and the needed resources they think about. The planet will save itself.

I know the earth will never dissapear that a fact( well after 6 billion years but that way too far) but the thing is our species is destroying everything including the living aspect of the earth and that make me really sad so many good living thing dying be the hand of humans and with the help of the polluted mankind , what would make the human try to change into a more eartling way? We simply cant.

The problem will stay if we cant have more respect for our beloved blue planet and we will see the impacts in just 40-50 years( it is already happening NASA confirmed that ice cap are melting so fast that water will rise above land in our living days) and that human fault not animals or volcano fault , there more than 10 billion cars/panes working and polluting and that more than every humans in the world and yet we still think it is ok to live like that ...i wish i was a leader and lead the humans to a change ..i think it is possible but being realistic i see not all people care that much about it sorry about that long post!

 

[notimp]

Hm... never though about it this way. Never mind humanism, or philosophy - the real goal the worlds economy should stife for is to "make millenials not sad".

Thats easy. Dislike all news about "NASA said the pole caps were melting" on facebook and you are done. Or actually start helping out an NGO that raises awareness on those issues - so eventually a political shift might become more attainable, and that you get a feeling of doing something about those issues.

You've got momentum on the sustainability front. There are some actually viable initiatives (the switch to a sustainable enrgy policy in germany for example) that state, that we should move away from the "needs of the many" as the ultimate goal in sustainability related matters, when it conflicts with environmental goals.

But the outcome still "depends" on what can be attained vs saved, because if you look at the recent Canada/US pipeline projects, those always would have been built. No matter how risky - or inconvenient the proposed build route was, or how damaging to the environment.

And even for good reason - because of the US aiming for energy independence, which gives them more sustainability in a shifting global world.

Because of the "the lesser harm" ideology, "saving the planet" ranges somewhere between the "dog and cat pages in your local newspaper", and "the thing scientists talk about, to make science look like anything other than math".

I'm actually "provokingly" almost of the opinion, that the entire 1968 generation, sold out their "ideal" of a different society, for some hippy sunglasses, and regular vacations in an untouched part of the world. Then, I'm reminded, that our generation didn't even try anymore... The ideologies are gone. And that was even before facebook entered the picture..

On the Icecaps topic.

Indeed, they are. And sealevels will rise - and many million of people will move, and many will have a very hard time getting to food or clean water supplies, and economies will crumble, and perspectives for those people will vanish -

but the US, and Australia are ocean locked continents- and couldnt care less. (Partly also because there is the fallback of geoengineering)

The outcomes of this are very real. Its just that the US doesnt want to be part of the solution, and play "island" instead.

The rest of the world will live with the consequences. You'll get a few more storms, you'll manage.

(Thats the anger that manifests, when millenials want to save puppies, while the US leaves the Paris climate accord)

 

[LawnMeower]

Our planet is infected by a disease called humans