• thumb
    Apr 3 2012: This may sound terrible harsh, but why are we different than other animals that experience food shortages?
    While you may say, we are smart than other animals, I will suggest that if that were so, there would not be a problem to discuss here.
    • thumb
      Apr 3 2012: That doesn't sound harsh it is harsh, you need to add the symbol for evil tittering to your comment.

      Maybe it is the human capacity to take care of his own that makes him smarter, I mean I walk on my hind legs all of the time, as far as you know.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2012: First, I am raising this question as a point of discussion and not as my personal point of view on hunger. This forum should allow us to explore all sides of an issue.
        We all care, this is not the point. Caring alone will NOT solved the problem. Many many other animals "take care of (their) own". (you are suggesting that empathy, makes us more intelligent, without providing an explanation. Arguably, the opposite is true, it is because we have the brain we do that we are as empathetic as we are)
        But as smart as we are, we have not figured out how to end the problem here in the USA.

        What is your solution to the problem?
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2012: or is the "brain" a manifestation of the empathy? because that is what works and has allowed mankind to survive better than the ones who do not walk on their hind legs.

          The solution is as natural as the aforementioned empathy which is to innovate a solution as mankind has always done. The only time this is not done is when a government gets involved.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2012: In response to Mr. Gilbert:

        Rarely do I single out an individual for a response, but in this case I will make an exception since I find a consistent pattern here or criticism and uninformed replies.

        Once again, no evidence is being provided to support your conjecture. And I find this is typical of well intentioned people who want to wish and hope a problem away.

        Regarding, "or is the "brain" a manifestation of the empathy? : I cannot provide the answer for you if you think it does. You will have to discover that on your own.
        Regarding innovating "a solution as mankind has always done" Indeed, and how long has man been working on the problem on? Are we better it worse off?
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2012: I'm flattered

          The evidence is called observation and is taken from the laboratory called the planet earth.
          Man's standard of living has considerably improved otherwise there would not be 7 billion of us here. The most obvious difference between us and those who do not walk on their hind legs is this brain you speak of. This may not be academic enough for you but I'm pretty sure it is true.
    • Apr 11 2012: Brilliant! Evidently, we are more animal than human to let this happen at the current moment in time or maybe we have other considerations that ensures poverty and hunger to exist. One thing I noticed in India was how politicians carefully nurtured poverty. This ensured themselves an importance to become the "problem solvers" and therefore worthy of the vote. So, how would they encourage poverty- by taking away viable sources of income and earning and making a person or a group of people "dependent" on them for "free" rice and homes and bicycles or bus rides. Then they encourage an environment of laziness- "Be a "bum" and I will give you food stamps and keep taking care of your health costs at someone else's expense. I shall even provide you with cheap liquor to numb your brain. And the hard earned money by your woman for your child can end up in my coffers as I run that liquor shop at the edge of the village that you took from her after battering her."
      If I were to be a dramatist, I could write a play that exposed the inner thought process of the politician who wants to "do good" for his people. It could be amusing or depressing based on who watches it- jungle law or moral code?
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: This is an excellent point and it reminds me that in the USA we have school lunch programs since 1946 for any eligible child. In 1995 we have extended this to breakfast programs. But there are problems with this program:

        "In late 2009, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies released,School Meals: Building Blocks For Healthy Children.[6] This report reviews and provides recommendations to update the nutrition standard and the meal requirements for the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program."

        In December 2009, a report was released that showed that fast food restaurants were far more rigorous in checking for bacteria and dangerous pathogens in beef and chicken than the school lunch program.

        In November 2011, an agriculture appropriations bill passed by Congress garnered controversy for blocking a proposed change by the Obama administration to school lunch regulations. (Congress concluded that pizza was a vegatable).

        Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_lunch_program
        and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/us/politics/congress-blocks-new-rules-on-school-lunches.html

        Politics obviously is a participant in the problem, as you point out, even in America.
        Still, there are two "meals" being served to children, so why would that be a hungry child of school age in American?
        Let me suggest that this may be because the definition of the term, "hunger" is very different in different parts of the world. I have never been a huge fan of the term for this very reason.
        In American we do not have a hunger problem as much as we have a nutrition problem
  • thumb
    Apr 1 2012: Kevin,

    It would be a world that values empathy.

    It is empathy that allowed humans to evolve.

    A terrible mistake was made a long time ago - we looked at the big anaimals around us - the great herd beasts and the carnivores. We saw how they competed against each other, how the males fought and proved their great strength. We forgot that it is not by great personal strength and dominance that empathy efvolved. We are weak animals, we will never be strong like lions or bulls. We were never meant to be like that - we were maent to be empathic., It was by empathy that we tamed the lions and bulls.
    But it was by the mistake that we turned away from empathy and turned to competition and struggle.
    THe community that empathy creates favours the community in great strength.
    The community that competition creates favours the psychopath/sociopath, the one without empathy.

    By mistaking ourselves for bulls and lions, we have turned our evolution into involution.

    Involution is an evolutionary dead end.

    We exhault the psychopath and call him hero and leader, we have built our institutions on him, make movies about his greatness and made shools of how to be like him 9without a shred of empathy) but all he does is to destroy our advantage as humans.

    THat world where all teh children eat? THat is the world where we have cured the psychopath and turned back to evolution.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: I agree with you Mitch, our current state of competitiveness as opposed to cooperativeness, is what will ultimately destroy us. I also agree that it is against our true nature. We are being sold the line that progress equates to profit and this, along with 'technology', will miraculously transform and protect us. Unfortunately it is a delusion used for the advantage of a few at the expense of the rest of us.
      • thumb
        Apr 10 2012: IT's funny, I had this conversation yesterday with a respected local journalist and thinker. He denied that there is any such thing as "involution" .. and rather than dissagree, I agreed to think on it some more. I think his point was that anything that exists in teh environment is evolutionary - even if it includes "involution".

        But then .. part of my ex-career in systems architecture, I had to know set theory inside-out - involution is absolutely a real thing in set-theory - and is always problematic with classificational/functional systems ..

        So .. if involution is part of evolution .. well . people can adapt to an environment OR adapt the environment .. and it might be an idea to turn away from our efforts changing the physical Earth and shift to changing the mental landscape (I'll see how my journalist friend responds to that - it will probably be worthwhile hearing his perspective).
    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: Yes, and I really ought to look up the Nash eqations - thanks for the reminder!
        It seems to me that the instant one creates a rule to be observed as policy amongst individuals, at that instant 3 things are created: a winner, a looser and a cheater. There is no game without rules, which makes me wary of rules - I believe play is for children - but like all beliefs, it is probably wrong ;)
        Lately, I keep coming back to the power and operation of empathetic sets. They are fabulously noise-reducing.
        To enable communication, each self creates 2 copies of the primary self into the perceptive field - one for self and one for other. These "proxies" are then modified through trial and observation - in the context of advantage. Iterations of trial and observation result in convergence - the convergence occurs in all empathetic pair sets involved in the exchange. Total convergence (within the limits of ambient noise) will be constrained by a deviation equivalent to deliberate noise injected into the exchange (lies). Lies work in the short term, but in the long term are detected by subsequent iterations of the pair set and normalised towards convergence. This assumes access to long term observation.
        In the face of long term observation, there is no such thing as competition. It becomes eliminated as noise. A properly normalised community of empathetic pair sets would have a tendency to subsume all competitive communities - provided that genocide is not inflicted on the seed-community.
        TO create such a fully normalised community would require absolute access to long-term observation - plus the determination to not penalise the liar - simply allow the convergence to occur in the liars pair-set.
        We actually have the beginnings of this - it is called the internet.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: Yep - and thank you for "groking" that a little .. in our exchange, my empathetic pair set that I have created to cover teh mitch/kevin communication can now access my general experience, so I know you were influenced by Toffler's book "Clockwork Orange". Toffler did a very brave and confronting thing with that book .. it was not easy reading. But he did blow away our comfort for familliar things and gave us some insight into cultural machinery from a number of different perspectives. THat "justice" depends on what lies you "believe".
        THe latest talk about monkeys and morality is very interesting. http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
        It demonstrates a few things:
        firstly that social creatures balance self advantage against mutual advantage.
        Secondly, that the trials conducted in teh experiments were based on the experimenter's copies of himself, they weren't about finding any truth about chimps or elephants, they were about the experimenter's notions of himself and humans.
        THirdly, that humans are not chimps or elephants
        Fourthly that all justification is based on a lie
        FIfthly, that reciprocity is a result of empathy.
        It is all about finding which is the dog and which is the tail. (cardinality).
        I do not like using common words to express commmon concepts - because the words we use for general concepts are terminally polluted by misrepresentation - I call them "garbage bin words"
        SO the word "morality" is next to meaningless to me.
        I'd rather talk about how, ultimately, for a social creature, mutual advantage is exactly equal to personal advantage. But "ultimately" has to be given a chance to happen before any judgement can be made .. and that requires a few iterations.
      • thumb
        Apr 11 2012: Hmmm many good concepts in there Kevin - And well put!

        For the likes of you and me, yes - our vanity could find us suddenly in gulags writing novels on teh walls in blood. .. And frankly, I don't much care - because I'll be in excellent company - even against the killing wall..

        There is only one thing that a human owns - and that is his/her work.
        If we work for others, it is a precious gift, and if we ask for that precius gift we are asking for the highest honour. It is our work that determines our honour.
        HOnour is a general old word, that once used to mean "mutual advantage = personal advantage"
        Most now work for money, and money is without honour.
        In that context, all "better systems" are only better for the golden pig - it is bloated and all-consuming such that our work becomes unfit for humans. And what becomes obsoleted is honour itself.
        The words flow out from us and belong to everyone. But in secret we no longer work for the pig - our best words are keys to little doors to escape the thing. If we are lucky, we will be well clear whan it finaly topples on all its faithful congregation.
        Some of my work now is to explore the magic of the resonant empathetic pairs - I think it will yield some good math .. perhaps Minski will pick it up.
        I have never had much respect for heuristics .. a thing is a concept or not, rules are for the moment, otherwise they become games, and games are good for children as they learn how to live. THen, life is not a game. Most rules are now at the service of the golden pig, ther are better places to be.
    • Apr 11 2012: Beautifully said! IxI (trying to create an icon for clapping!)
  • thumb
    Mar 29 2012: The right kind.
  • thumb
    Mar 29 2012: I think we would have to find a way to get rid of desensitization. Very very few people could sleep with a starving child in our house if we could do something to stop it. Yet, many of us sleep contently each night knowing children are starving in other cities or parts of the world. We are able to put it out of are mind. Is that because the problem is too big and we don't feel we can make a difference...Or is that because we have something in us that clicks off that part of our brain to help us deal with a problem that would give us all ulcers if we dwelt on it as the problem it is.

    Right now I know there is a child somewhere in the world writhing in pain as her digestive acid starts to eat away at her own body, producing gasses that fill her little belly like a balloon. She cries until she is to weak to do anything but whimper...she closes her eyes for the last time. Her brain shuts down because her pain sensors have been overloaded. She takes one more ragged breath using up the last bit of energy her far to little last meal gave her and she dies.
    I know this is happening... When I write about it I feel horrible... I feel a little sick inside...Its not a pleasant feeling. Now I ask myself what can I do about this... Many of us just say...Well I can stop thinking about it. We have that option...Imagine its your own little girl dying of starvation...the bad feeling we got just got a whole lot worse...But its not our child its far away. To some of us out of sight is far way...We are overwhelmed or desensitized...

    We have enough food for everyone. We just have to realize that there are a lot of things we can do...no we cant solve the problem overnight but We cant stop caring and become desensitized either...We are humans and that has to count for something.
    • thumb
      Apr 2 2012: James, I think you have a good point.
      I am beginning to understand what Desmond Morris observed a while back .. that we can regard about 200 other humans in our lives, and all others are abstract to us.
      If I had an MRI brain scanner - such as used by ANtonio Damasio
      DAmasio sems to have identified the primary "self" .. this is useful.
      IF I had such a scanner, I would go looking for where these "others" are stored in our brains.
      I would go looking for the models we keep for singular relationships - family and friends.
      THen I would go looking for where we store plural relationships - "they"
      I predict we will find brain stuctures that correspond to all the personal pronouns.
      I predict that they will be closely connected to the language centres, and that they will be identified by the face recognition centre.
      I predict that they will be basic copies of "self" - and that they will have access to the body-regulation functions, just as self has. That this is the basis of empathy.
      I predect that the plural models will not have direct access to body-regulators.
      I propose that it is the disconnect of the plural "other" models that prevents us feeling the pain of strangers until that stranger is in our direct view and becomes a singular "other".
      THis is a bit of a problem, and is at the root of tribalism.
      We need a code of custom to ease the apathy between tribes.
      Unfortunately, in times of scarcity, tribal competition becomes natural and we start talking of "property".
      That also needs a solution - maintaining abundance would seem like an answer. But .. well, the world is now carrying 7 billion people .. abundance is probably not a problem.
      THe overshoot of human population could easily be fixed by insisting on the right of the female to choose the male - and to train her to select the man who nurtures, not the man who dominates.
      • W T

        • +1
        Apr 3 2012: Mitch......I really appreciated your comment that begins:

        "You are all so beautifully programmed - to think that life is divided by work and leisure."

        thank you
        • thumb
          Apr 3 2012: It's invisible to us .. in all of history, the crazy farmer has been at work .. 10 thousand years of it.
          Slowly turning us from the power of our empathy that binds us as a beutiful powerful species.. Turning us one by one into psychopaths and sociopoths devoid of empathy .. destroying all our beuty and power and the very earth we walk on.
          Evolution made us strong in numbers, involution makes us weak and alone. As alone as the crazy farmer.
          I look to brain science to identify the psychopath .. and give him the gift of empathy.
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2012: @ Mitch; I would perform the same set of tests, looking for what sparks up when people experience feelings of greed, power and acquisitiveness. I suspect that brain function which governs all aspects of fear, from basic insecurity anxieties, to physical threat, abandonment, and sexual disfunction, are the guilty culprits.

        After all, when farmers began farming, one of the first thing they needed to learn to do was build a fence, and building the first defensive structures in reality, must have sprung from some new defensive pschycological structures in the human brain.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2012: @Joanne.
          It's a good question . I'm no expert, but, having listened to the great thinkers here on TED, books and other sources, it seems like we are getting a new opportunity to confront some of these vexing issues.
          My thought is that it is the task of children to try a range of behavioural approaches to their situations .. and that it is the role of the culture to nurture constructive strategies.
          I believe (could be wrong) that the psychopath is structurally inured to cultural nurture, and can initiate the promotion of destructive strategies - and in this way, manufacture sociopaths.
        • thumb
          Apr 10 2012: It is also my belief that the defensive structure you are talking about is the simple territorial urge extended from our distant ancestors .. one needs only observe tomcats .. but cats are not social ceatures and they are carnivores, how that develops in the social omnivore creature .. my experience of tribal humans included some remarkable male threat displays they are usually verbal, and they usually are associated with sexual competition (just like tomcats) but, unlike tomcats, they do not occur in the absence of the female. It is more of a dance than a fight.
          perhaps the 200-person tribe defines the range of natural empathy, that inter-tribal territorial dispute demarks a boundary over which empathy does not prevent the dance from becoming murderous. In such a case, a fence might be a good idea.
          The problem with humans is that they are so incredibly versatile, the nature/nurture debate is impossible to define. It may very well be solved by the scans that you propose.
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2012: @James, I am concerned about human suffering in the world, but I am more hurt and appalled at the callous approach to suffering and neglect in my own back yard. I am increasingly disturbed by the level of social disrespect for human life, the erosion of public health care, care for the elderly, education and the ensuing suffering. I agree with everything you say, but I also think that in a more wealthy society one of the illusions people like to cling to is that only people in other countries can be food insecure, that only in 'poor' or 'developing' countries do kids go to bed hungry.

      In fact, a huge number of children across the usa are food insecure...today. I dread to consider the numbers for my own country, and I guess, based on the numbers of hungry kids I get in my classroom with each new intake, the numbers are worse than we would be ready to admit.
      • Apr 11 2012: Yes indeed, it is worrisome to see some children come hungry to school that their brains are just not ready to "learn". When I first saw this situation, here in America, i was shocked. I thought hungry kids are only in India and Africa! Not only are many children hungry, many are also malnourished. They eat the wrong kinds of foods that does not make up for all the food groups and vitamins and minerals that are required for their growing bodies and minds.

        We have solutions too, but it will mean working together instead of trying to prove myself "right" and earning brownie points (by ways of collecting awards and recognition and money etc.) and until this egoistic attitude continues, solutions will not be implemented. World hunger and poverty can be solved overnight if we all were more "human"!
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2012: Yes Meenakshi, you highlight some really important points. I think you would be surprised how many people cling to the illusion that our 'wealthy' countries are a kind of shangri la of happiness and prosperity for all. Few would be willing to acknowledge the true nature of deprivation in countries where there is plenty to go around. When it is unavoidable, many people look for ways to blame the victim. After all, the system cannot be at fault, it must be due to some sort of moral failing in the individual or their caregiver.

          I also found your other post interesting about some of the reasons people may feel inclined to invest in poverty.
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2012: I 100% agree Joanne. I personally have seen many of the things you discussed. I am a teacher and I grew up in a foster home.

        Here is the problem. Over the years I saw children come in and out of my life who were abused and came to the home from parents who tried to strangle them, drown them, abused them in every possible way. They were under fed and under loved. I saw them leave and often times go back to the abusers. My point is When I thought out about it I would want to scream out HELL NO! I would and still at times want to run out and physically do something about it..it was the only answer my brain could come up with. Follow the kids home take there parents and "an eye for an eye" Well of course I was told this is not the right thing to do and could not be done. Well then what is to be done. When we look at the problem we realize its so deep rooted and each branching off root goes in another direction that it seems hopeless. That's what I mean by getting overwhelmed when we see an injustice that we feel helpless to do anything about.
        In order to address hunger in our own backyards look at all the different aspects we need to look at. Politics, economy, learned helplessness, Parent rights...the right to be a PARENT..aah!...that one right there seems so big that I feel a little overwhelmed..but it needs to be addressed no matter how bad it sounds from a political standpoint.
        One of things I love about TED is it sometimes forces me to think about things I really don't want to think about...its like online meditation with a a thousand gurus to keep me going.
        On this problem, yes it seems to big but if I think about it I realize I have to look at it the same way I look at it the same way I look at the seemingly overwhelming stack of papers on my desk. I have to start somewhere...I have to do something. I have to pick up the first paper and grade it or the problem wont get any smaller. And that first paper might be volunteering, counseling, talking to my local rep
        • W T

          • 0
          Apr 13 2012: James, I really enjoyed reading through your reflections. As a fellow educator I also have seen quite a bit.

          Your comment brought to memory a student I had. His mom was an accountant. Yet, for all the degrees, and the intellectual ability she had, her parenting skills left much to be desired. Her child, my student, was dropped off in the park early mornings, to wait until school opened to eat breakfast. The student loved sweets, which they ate all day.....all the student's teeth were rotten....and I MEAN rotten....I looked inside the mouth myself after they cried from the pain....Lice was another issue.

          You don't know the pain and suffering I went through dealing with that child. And yet, my hands were tied.....No human government can make anyone change their "attitudes".....changing the person we are inside requires a higher source.

          I have found, personally, that a study of the bible has helped me to discover what is at the root of all the issues plaguing humankind. I am now involved in a bible educational work that helps people change who they are, and start getting results now......the long term results we'll see in the future.........

          Again, thank you for your wonderful, honest, reflection. It was a pleasure to read it.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2012: Hi James, that is one of the reasons I come on TED too, it makes us look at the world with our eyes open. I like to learn.

          I find it interesting, and pleasing, when I see people I have engaged with, perhaps even in a challenging way, discussing something with some one else, and I see them bringing things to that talk, from our earlier threads. I think I do the same thing myself. We all grow from the contact with each other, even some of the less positive contacts.

          Its great to hear your 'sharing' even though the story was sad. I wish I could protect each one of those vulnerable children.
    • thumb
      Apr 10 2012: James, i agree, and i believe the answer is for every community to be empowered and compelled to feed their own kids. In a world where every community is empowered to sustainably develop and protect its own resources, this becomes possible.
  • Apr 11 2012: If I may, I would like to draw peoples attention towards another TED talk - Jared Diamond on why societies fail - The talk is primarily about the environmental impacts which cause socities to fail but I think it has a broad relevence to this topic of conversation. He makes an interesting point at 15.49 which i'll summarise. People ask what is the most important issue to focus on regarding the environment. His reply is that the most important issue is to stop focusing on what is the most important issue, there are a dozen issues ALL of which need to be solved. Having read Jared's book 'Collapse how societies choose to fail or survive' (highly recomended) I would like to adapt some of his arguments to outline what I think are the main problems relating to world hunger.

    1 Land/water degradation. From environmental change, pollution and destructive farming/fishing techniques.
    2 Uneven distribution. With food resources going to those with riches rather than those with needs.
    3 Population growth. More and more mouths to feed every single day.
    4 Warfare and other sources of systemic violence including lack of empathy. Affecting access to nutrition.
    5 Photosynthetic ceiling. There’s only so much sunlight which reaches the earth, therefore a limit on the total plant growth and plankton the earth can support.
    6 Competing human land use. Farming land may be taken up by other human use such as urbanisation, mining etc.
    7 Bio-diversity loss. Fish stock collapse, decline in pollinating species and so forth.

    I'm not offering any solutions (at the moment) just trying to define what the problems and issues are.
  • Apr 11 2012: When we find hungry kids in American classrooms, they are kids from families where a parent is either asleep in the morning (because they worked a night shift) or an adult is at work in the morning that the "kid" is the adult taking care of younger siblings or in rarer cases the adult is drunk or hazed out and the kid barely gets ready and leaves home with no food- there is no food at home. Chips packet, sodas and other high shelf life items constitute the pantry, if that. Several of these kids do not qualify for the free lunch programs as technically their responsible adults are not so "dire". But when the adult's income is either consumed paying bills/ rent or an expensive addiction, the kids are the losers. They do not even have that 60 cents to pay for breakfasts at school. Also, some of them feel "ashamed" and some of them hide their hunger from their friends as it is not "kosher" at that age. It is more complicated than what meets the eye. The usual unstated rule of thumb is that only impoverished kids or kids with messed up home lives have breakfast at school. "Normal kids" from "normal families" eat at home and then come to school. This is a very serious problem. Unwritten social taboos exist.
  • thumb
    Apr 6 2012: I think I am going to have to answer your question with another one or two questions. When/how does it become ethical to limit population growth? When/how does it become ethical to limit exploitation of any resource in the name of profit?

    Answer either one of those questions and I guess you will have begun to formulate an answer to your own question.
    • thumb
      Apr 6 2012: hope never and never
    • thumb
      Apr 7 2012: Joanne, if I may a question or two to you. Who decides what ethics are and how they should be applied? Why is the exploitation of a resource for a profit always considered an ethical issue of such broad brush. Why do you feel that profit is a dirty word and an unethical system? Do not my children deserve to be fed, clothed and sheltered? Is it not the responsibility of every parent to do the best they can for their children? Every child will need to be loved and cared for and if we cannot feed from the resources at hand should we not develop new resources?
      • thumb
        Apr 7 2012: Hi James, lets deal with your questions one at a time.

        Here is the first ;'Who decides what ethics are and how they should be applied?' Most of us, even people who are seemingly devoid of any ethical standpoint, subscribe to a set of ethics. We arrive at our particular set of ethics through a complex arrangement of educational circumstances which could be defined or describes as 'culture'. How those ethics are applied, become a wider construct, part of the great social experiment called 'civilisation'.

        To answer the second question; 'Why is the exploitation of a resource for a profit always considered an ethical issue of such broad brush'. I have not implied this therefore it is not relevant so I will move to the third question.

        Third question; 'why do you feel that profit is a dirty word and an unethical system?'. James, you are making an erroneous assumption here; I do not think 'profit' is a dirty word, I only ask the question WHEN is it ethical to limit the exploitation of any resource. You are quite free to answer 'never' as Krisztian clearly has. It would be a foolish and poorly thought through response, however.

        Your fourth and fifth questions: yes and yes, respectively.
  • Apr 3 2012: MORE FUN, LESS FAMINE! 3-day/24-hour work week and $30.00 per hour minimum wage. Let's see what lovely places this will take humanity. While we are at it, let's equalize power between males and females. I am confident that, if we live according to the truths we are aware of, we can work and play together cooperatively to co-create a healthy, prosperous, happy world for 100% of humanity. Happy Today.
  • W T

    • +1
    Mar 31 2012: In a new earth, with a new government...where everyone is viewed as a brother or a sister, and there is no more hatred, prejudices, religions, wars....Imagine!!!
  • thumb
    Mar 31 2012: Whatever the threshhold number might be, it will have to be a world where once we are crossing that threshhold, people should not have children if the children or themselves will be starving. I'm not being uncompassionate, I just mean that the shift in human desire and actions must include each 'me' not just 'everyone else.'
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2012: One where we as a people truly care for one another regardless of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or political ideal. We have to ability now to feed us all - but this is hampered by the time it takes for one country with the surplus to make offers or deals, determine the cheapest logistics, or tackle 10 other "problems" before they can actually commit to those countries with the need. And in the meantime people are dying, children are starving, and the rest of the world who is not seeing it with their own eyes is trying to remain ignorant because emotionally that is the easier path.
    • W T

      • 0
      Mar 31 2012: Bryanna....a resounding ABSOLUTELY to YOU!!!

      If humans have not been able to rid the earth of hunger thus far......what makes them think they will accomplish it with an increase of population?

      Truly man has tried every government imaginable; now through NGO's and other efforts, some well intentioned individuals are trying to make a difference....will they succeed? We'll have to wait and see.
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2012: Honestly I don't think any government or even an NGO can ever succeed completely. True they will make an amazing difference to some compared to doing nothing at all, but sadly I don't ever see the human race EVER completely overcoming our negative feelings towards one another. And this is so so sad. But that doesn't mean we can't work toward that goal anyways! And we should be doing just that! And hopefully over time the NGO's can teach our multifaceted governments a few tips on how best to achieve betterment for ourselves and others.
    • W T

      • 0
      Apr 3 2012: Bryanna, why do you say you don't ever see the human race EVER completely overcoming our negative feelings towards one another??

      Today, there are millions of people who do get along, and have no prejudice and try to do good on a worldwide scale.

      It is hard to see the change, but it is out there.....be optimistic!!! :)

      And I will add this one further thought: no NGO, or government can change YOU.....YOU have to change yourself......then, when you are changed for the better, you can go about helping others.

      NGO's and governments are run by imperfect individuals like you and me. So what they do in a large scale, we can do in a small scale......Ever seen the power a mosquito has at 12:00 a.m. when you are trying to sleep and it buzzes in your ear????? Even a mosquito is powerful, even though it is a small thing....and there are millions of them.

      I have enjoyed reading your comments.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2012: I don't ever see hate and prejudice being eradicated from the human race because we are just that - human. We are a species that is ruled by emotion, and we cannot pick and choose which emotions we want to feel.

        For example, I think all kids should have religious education included in their education - not because I am religious (I'm not) but because I think we tend to think negatively of things we do not understand so why aren't we educating people to do just that. And sadly these types of things where "the few ruin it for the many".

        Regardless of this I am very optimistic, but I also feel we that to change things we have to be educated on what what is happening. That means we all need to be a little bit realistic as well. The realist in me is what believes that human can never be truly 100% all the time positive. But the optimist in me wants to reach for that goal anyways!

        I'm not sure I explained myself well enough but I hope you got the gist of it! And I have enjoyed our dialog as well!
        • W T

          • +1
          Apr 3 2012: Yes, of course you explained yourself perfectly.

          Of course, I agree with you, education is the key.

          And, furthermore, we really don't need the schools to teach religion. What we need is parents, teaching by example. As an educator, I have taught all kinds of character education classes to little ones, but you know what? If their parents are bigots, envious, prejudice, selfish people, what I do, falls by the wayside.......Truly the key is to teach the children at home by our example.......also, as adults, we can work on ridding ourselves of negative traits in our personality.......It is an undo-it-yourself project.

          You are probably familiar with the situation in Rwanda in 1994, correct?

          Well, did you know that even though the Hutus tried to eliminate the Tutsi's, many Hutus who had come to understand that we humans are truly brothers and sisters, at the risk of their own lives hid and protected many Tutsis?

          Many lost their lives for such a stand. Those dear brothers and sisters of mine, had done away with hate and prejudice Bryanna. There are many millions of people earthwide like us who do not hate anyone based on race or religion or any other factor. But it has taken education....the highest education that exists today. It is free for the taking. It comes by studying and applying Biblical principles in one's life. Of course, this is not to say that there are individuals who, even though they do not believe, still apply these godly principles, and call it something else.

          While some individuals, sadly, enjoy being the way they are, we have no control over this. We can only change ourselves, IF WE want to.

          I see a wonderful future ahead for humanity.........my eyes are on the things unseen.....because the things seen are momentary....the things unseen are everlasting. As someone who has faith in the Bible, I have learned how to endure the times we live in, and to help others see a brighter tomorrow.

          Utopia is close at hand Bryanna!!
  • thumb
    Mar 29 2012: in a world with people stop forcing their worldview on other people, and stop using aggression to "solve" problems.
  • Apr 27 2012: One that is a garden.
    Oh, if there was a Garden, earth was it, but at the behest of religion, the gardeners (we humans), have destroyed it.

    Or, the way things are going?

    A cannibalistic world.

    It would also help in reducing over-population because even a cannibal can't get laid.

    The fact is: we already can do this. WE DON'T.
    The fact is: we are mindful of what we are doing. WE AREN'T CHANGING.
    Partly because so many of those in wealthy countries still believe their jobs and their own families come first, then, keeping the world from self-destruction, second or further down the list.

    They completely ignore, nor do they teach and inform their own children, of the rapidly approaching state or conditions for cannibalism in "their" very near futures.

    We absolutely refuse to get rid of the causes, so everything else we talk about is just rhetoric that is only as deep as a puddle. Starving children is acceptable or tolerable to those in wealthy countries. A wealthy world doesn't mean kids will eat. The wealthy are the only ones who can solve many of the world's problems. They refuse to. Poverty, starvation and other evil-ills, are simply accepted as part of the system we all live in (collateral stuff, know what I mean?), and then the majority of those going to work, then accept that conclusion as well.

    Not only is starvation acceptable and tolerable, but feeding everyone (and we can), is not acceptable or tolerated because that would mean getting rid of our 100% unjust system and creating a just one and that is not acceptable or to be tolerated. Why, it's communistic, socialistic or some other demonizing word or name to end all serious discussion and thinking that leads to mobilization to clean those in power out. Mobilization/action is needed. Not globalization for ONE.
    • thumb

      Paul L

      • 0
      Apr 28 2012: Dear Random Chance, are you any different to those whom you label wealthy?

      As I've said elsewhere
      ( http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html ), participating in online discussions such as this is just one example of a luxury now widely regarded as an essential aspect of the good life, and the very fact that millions of people just like you and I aren’t generally willing to give up our ‘right’ to a comfortable lifestyle is precisely why poverty persists and the world’s resources are getting evermore concentrated into fewer hands. We’re all suffering beings searching for happiness. Blaming ‘the wealthy’ for all our problems is the attitude of a victim who mistakenly believes that material comforts and other people can provide lasting happiness and security.

      We’ve all seen pictures of people smiling and laughing joyfully despite having to endure extreme hardships. On the other hand, we see plenty of people who are unable to enjoy their affluence because their mind is disturbed and so they blame their unhappiness on disagreeable circumstances or other people. Impermanence, insubstantiality and dissatisfaction are existential facts: we’re always going to encounter things in life that we dislike and would prefer to avoid or eradicate (often without regard to the consequences for others), and as long as we keep clinging to our fantasies of lasting security and happiness we’ll continue to suffer...

      As I believe Gandhi correctly observed, there’s enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed. If we’re serious about alleviating suffering and saving the planet we each have to examine all of our lifestyle choices honestly and resolve to abandon any activities that we know to be frivolous and contributing to the perennial problems of poverty, environmental destruction and warfare over ‘scarce’ resources.
  • thumb

    Paul L

    • 0
    Apr 26 2012: Most likely, I would answer, on a world where everyone is mindful of what they are doing, because they understand that all wilful actions have unintended consequences...

    The perennial problems of poverty, environmental destruction, and warfare over ‘scarce’ resources have all arisen because – like all sentient beings – we each seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. We’re all conditioned into thinking that MY desires are ultimately more important than anyone else’s, and we behave accordingly despite our human capacity for empathy with others. Whatever situation we enter into, there’s always something or someone we dislike, and we tend overreact by trying to fix it instead of adopting an attitude of patience and equanimity. Intuitively we know that everything changes and there’s no such thing as lasting security or happiness, yet still we strive to insulate ourselves against life’s potential problems. The trouble is, everyone else is busy doing the same and so we inevitably get drawn into conflicts...

    My approach is simple - think less, do less. If I'm bored, anxious or unhappy I try to focus on relieving other people’s suffering instead of distracting myself with pointless activities and consuming more resources than I actually need. I believe that if we all work to get our own spiritual house in order the rest will follow.
  • thumb
    Apr 24 2012: On a wealthy one.
  • Dan F

    • 0
    Apr 14 2012: A question that assumes self sufficiency is unattainable for some. A well documented problem around the world that just dosen't go away. So to meet that need depends on the gifting of others. So money is gifted to a family or a government and they buy lottery tickets and military gear.

    Whether we like it or not, at best, treating a problem often only exacerbate it without some corresponding preventative measures, or conditions to affect a brighter future. First the aid needs to get to the target without disappearing on the way. Second, even if 100% efficient, is it not reasonable to promote behavior and conditions to lessen this unintended abuse of children? The recent talk on birth control needs more attention. I assume most people or families don't want hand outs. It is demeaning without recovery at some point. Perhaps feeding the mind is ultimately just as important as feeding the belly. Ideally, families and governments are responsible for the care of their children and citizens and to live within their ways and means needs to be axiomatic.

    I'm assuming real world conditions continue to will play out in the future as has been the case in the past.
  • thumb
    Apr 14 2012: I agree about pets, starvation etc. see my "Conversation" about the real issues of water and pollution. If we do not correct these and stop feeding grains to cows and cars this conversation will be mute when the Oglala is drained, the Gulf dead zone kills our sea life.

    I would be interested in your take on my TED Conversation. I think the quality of the food and the impact of producing it on the bio community is of paramount importance.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2012: Mary M

    In all the world, developed or underdeveloped exist the professional victim.
    I see this pity entrepreneurs the same in Italy, France, Mexico o USA...note that the professional victim appears just when and where is possible to collect some aid. I've never seen a proffesional victim asking for aid to a begger in rags.
    The natural and very human desire to achieve the fairwell and to help other to do it is one thing with different levels. Charity, true charity is the highest rank CHARISMA, from the greek, means :atracttion.

    The poverty concept has changed trough times. In the Medieval era was with a very different significance, but in time to time the history changes from human links, to social structures. In human links, connected all the time, the charity was a virtue.

    Today is a professional task. We all suffer with the human pain but the compassion has vanished in all the vanity fire (not fair). Dante, in the XIV century, define the hell as a place where nothing connects with nothing. The very same time when the social modern structures was invented,and the poverty and richness reinvented.
  • thumb
    Apr 13 2012: Simple: a world that valued children.

    What you value, you feed.

    A world in which some children starve is a world that does not value all children.
  • Apr 13 2012: To each their own. I find getting out of the current system very exciting and appealing. In my view money and politicians have proven to be inefficient and ineffective. I prefer a much more scientific approach to fixing issues that plague the people of the planet.

    The question was "On what kind of world would all the children eat?" Do you have any ideas for this? Or are you just another conservative troll.
  • Apr 12 2012: We would need to transition to a non monetary Resource Based Economy like The Venus Project and the Zeitgeist Movement suggest. I think a good transitory step forward would be to educate and adapt a global ecological economic model.
    • thumb
      Apr 12 2012: education and the venus project are contradictory. the more one educates oneself, the less appealing the venus project becomes.
  • thumb
    Apr 12 2012: Let me throw this thought into the mix here because it does address hunger and food.
    I came across this figure: "One-third of the world's fish catch and more than one-third of the world's total grain output is fed to livestock."
    This cause me to wonder about the food we feed our pets: Americans own approximately 86 million cats, and 78 million dogs, and even 7 million horse (from APPA’s 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey).
    The US pet food manufacturing industry includes about 200 companies with combined annual revenue of about $17 billion. Major companies include divisions of Nestle (Nestle Purina PetCare Company); Procter & Gamble (Iams); Colgate-Palmolive (Science Diet and Prescription Diet); Mars (Pedigree and Whiskas); and Del Monte (9Lives, Gravy Train, Milk-Bone, and Meow Mix).
    • W T

      • +3
      Apr 12 2012: I am so glad you brought this up............imagine, knowing that 25,000 children die daily because of poverty, and dogs and cats have supermarkets just for them!!!!

      I........I........I have no words.............

      On what kind of world would all the children eat? On this world, with a different set of humans running it.
      There is enough food......but it doesn't reach everyone.

      tsk tsk tsk.....
      • thumb
        Apr 12 2012: Look at this:


        I think it's good to consider all the things we might be doing wrong and all the things we might be doing right, but I tend to doubt that substantially more food would reach children on a world with no pets and/or where everybody ate less chicken, because the world has enough food now.
        • thumb
          Apr 12 2012: What we are both suggesting here is that hunger is not as much an issue of food, as it is about relationship, meaning that we are all too removed from the problem.
          Why do people have so many pets, what need do they fill? Why do we provide better care for a dog or cat than we do for starving children? I can suggest that the it is because the pets provide companionship and fill a need for connection.
          Sugata Mitra did a TED Talk about education, where he speak of the "Granny-Cloud":

          In Britain, "I put out a call for British grandmothers, after my Kuppam experiment. Well, you know, they're very vigorous people, British grandmothers. 200 of them volunteered immediately. The deal was that they would give me one hour of broadband time, sitting in their homes, one day in a week. So they did that, and over the last two years, over 600 hours of instruction has happened over Skype, using what my students call the granny cloud. The granny cloud sits over there. I can beam them to whichever school I want to."

          Is this a way to connect hunger children with caring adults in a way that might make hunger more personal to those of us with the means to make a difference in a child's life?
      • Comment deleted

        • W T

          • 0
          Apr 13 2012: Kevin, Kevin.........do you think it will work?

          I will share a story with you of when I was doing volunteer work in an underdeveloped country.

          As I was walking down the street one afternoon, I stopped to speak with an elderly woman who was waiting for her grandaughter to arrive home. She went into a lively discussion of how every month her granddaughter receives $25 from a Fund to help underpriviledge children.

          Guess what? That young lady was not underpriviledge.....how she ended up on the list of children needing money I don't know....but I am sure the person donating those $25 was so happy to help, in the meantime, the children who needed the $25 in another part of town, were walking around barefoot, with empty bellies, and living in tin can shacks and dirt floors. Alot of times, having the connections to those that are distributing the aid, is what gives people the upper hand....while the truly needy go without the much needed help. (Deep sigh...)

          I think we humans sometimes fool ourselves into thinking that problems like hunger and poverty can be solved by human efforts............I don't think they can.

          If we could solve it, it would be solved........it is not a matter of not enough food, it is a matter of bad government......humans ruling over humans.....blind leading the blind.

          What is the true solution? Everyone has a different opinion as to this. I have mine.

          Time will tell who is right.
      • Comment deleted

        • W T

          • +1
          Apr 13 2012: I will check out reconomy Kevin. Thank you.

          Also, I surely look forward to see this get off the ground.....probably would make a good TED talk.

          Still, it is a very brave thing you are doing.....Much success to you and your efforts.
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2012: Kevin maybe I'm wrong but....It is correct to level poverty with hunger?
          In the USA you are a "rich" country, here in Mexico we are a "poor"country, we don't have so much technology, but we have one of the richest soil in the continent. We were bigger than US , but nowaday you purchase a lot of our land...so you said: "Still, this does not eliminate poverty. But I think it makes it possible to eliminate poverty because genuine local marketplaces develop and control their own resources, and real poverty is a lack of these."

          Why US indicates poverty strategies in economics and agriculture to dominate other countries?
      • thumb
        Apr 13 2012: Mary....I agree...in this world...and it's not the same "hunger" than "famine".
        The so called "hunger" is a manipulated and criminal famine to reduce population by starvation.
        Please read the Lugano Report from Susan George to discover the PRS (Population Reduction Strategies) running now....with the benediction from the "Codex Alimentarius. The food poisoning is just one of the tactical procedures, from the seeds (Monsanto and all the chemical industries) to WAL-Mart (the distribution sistem). And is so hard to see that USA and Mexico are the obesity kings in all the world
        Is nice to review the Slow Food and Terra Madre proposals from Italy and now over all the world (I'm part of ithe mexican Slow Food Convivia).

        • W T

          • 0
          Apr 14 2012: Jaime.....Again, ideas I had not realized were out there....although Monsanto is something I am aware of.....and Walmart, well......let me not even go there.....I'll be off topic.

          I enjoyed navigating the site of slowfood....there appears to be some nice initiatives going on.....I enjoyed the video with the kids, although in italian, I truly enjoyed it....well, I'm a teacher, so I am biased to kids learning. Also enjoyable was looking through the university pictures of the hands on gastronamy classes.....how wonderful. I thoroughly enjoy cooking, and learning about the science behind the recipes. Thank you for sharing.

          As a school teacher, I see what kids get fed here....I have been seeing it for over 30 years.....usually it is starch, more starch, and then a little bit more starch...plus sugar.
          My kids never ate cafeteria food.....and I try to buy real food.....the kind that spoils within a few days....yes, I make alot of trips to the market....but, we make a concerted effort to consume lean meats (no beef) whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

          It is scary what is happening with Monsanto.....a couple of months ago, some brave TEDster started a conversation on farming and chemicals, it got pretty heated....I'll see if I can find the link to the conversation, you might enjoy reading through it, since there was alot of current legislation mentioned......and the TEDster that started the conversation is a farmer, so we learned alot about the situation with Monsanto from the farmer's perspective.

          Jaime, I now have alot of interesting things to look up and think "critically" about thanks to you.

          Buenas noches...and thank you again.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 13 2012: Rebuild the world seems multidimensional task with a very huge amount of interdependence between cultures and nations. We can start with ourselves, inside our homes and families. In our hearts and our personal lives. But also is the exterior world with all the evil and good, then we have to do intelligent things with sensible roots. We can use of all our technology and science but also our will and faith. No matter how big or small countries are, they are human constructions with all human virtues and sins.
    • thumb
      Apr 13 2012: On the "American pets" issue, let me just say that last year I heard an article about the long standing tend of the wealthy in LA to pay for plastic surgery for their pets. $20,000 face lifts. When you realize how many children that could feed, not just in the poor sections of LA, but also in villages just 200 miles south, well, it does lend credence to the idea that we truly have divorced ourselves from our human brethren who do not have our same resources and opportunities.
      • W T

        • 0
        Apr 13 2012: SHOCKING!!!!!

        Reminds me of a time when I started a conversation with fellow teachers about the trafficking of humans and I got alot of angry stares and incredulous smirks......people blind themselves....they all want their comfortable lives, and don't want to look and really SEE what is happening around the earth.

        Supermarkets for pets, plastic surgery for dogs.....where does it all end?????

        Anybody from CNN or ABC or NPR reading this, and willing to do a live special about this issue?
        • thumb
          Apr 13 2012: Mary M the human boundaries for perversity are, almost erased.

          Today here in TED Melinda Gates said: Let's put birth control back on the agenda......
          the I choose to put pet stupidity control in the agenda.....

          I don blame the pets...but the owners,and facilitators of that abuse.
  • Apr 11 2012: Acting together positively to resolve the issue of the world is best thing to work through to maintain piece and stability in every region. United country and nation help together will solve the hunger problem in the world.
  • Apr 11 2012: Where there is sharing and not scarcity mentality.
  • thumb
    Apr 9 2012: Thanks to everyone who has shared their thoughts here. We've reached 50 comments, and I've extended the time on this discussion to one month - another 20 days.
  • thumb
    Apr 2 2012: Do you want a realistic answer or an idealistic one?

    because the answer to your question is the world we decide to leave them with..now what type of world that is is something to be seen
  • Mar 31 2012: 3-day work week combined with $30.00-per-hour minimum wage, all the children of the world would eat well and be healthy and happy and so would their parents.
    • thumb
      Mar 31 2012: could you present the logical steps how that systems causes such effects?
      • Mar 31 2012: Poverty is caused in part by the fear of the greedy exploiting the poor. Productivity has been rising steadily. Wages have not risen in proportion to increases in productivity. People working too many hours are deprived of happy, healthy human relationships, time to do their own thing. If people had enough freedom, enough time to do their own thing, their creativity, productivity, health and happiness would increase. The top 1% of the money income group would feel safer knowing people are not lusting after their wealth because they have enough of their own to live lives of sufficient material well-being, time for good human relationships, dignity and other positive consequences of freedom and sufficient economic income and assets.
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2012: any data backing that up? as i see, in the last hundred years, wages went up like crazy. exploitation diminished. and today, the major consumer of products are the workers themselves.

          this entire image of oppressed masses and selected few is totally off base. this vision is so limited in time and in place, and perfectly detached from reality.
        • thumb
          Apr 2 2012: I do agree that most people (at least that I know!) work more hours than is healthy, and that does have a negative effect on their relationships and health. But I disagree that giving people more leisure time will lessen their desire for money. We live in a world that is driven by consumerism and our perceived status is based off of what we own. A lot of people would still be lusting after that top 1%'s cars, clothes, houses, lives, etc. And at $30 an hour I know I would volunteer to pick up a shift or two extra for some of those perks.
      • Mar 31 2012: Kris, I disagree with you. Productivity of workers went up like crazy. Money income of 1% of the population went up like crazy. Perhaps you have been observing a narrow segment of the world's population. Check out reality directly and through the honest statistics. Show me where money income is equitably distributed.
        • thumb
          Mar 31 2012: your data is misaligned. increase in productivity overlaps with increase in income for the masses. USA in the 1800!s and india right now.
        • thumb
          Apr 1 2012: it would be nice of you to quote some relevant sentences or data, or summarize what is in it. however, here is the very beginning of the article:

          "New ILO report says US leads the world in labour productivity"

          please note that it talks about the current data point, not growth. at the same time, US kinda leads in wages too. wage and productivity goes hand in hand.

          "some regions are catching up, most lag behind"

          exactly as i have said. india and china catching up, somalia and afganistan does not.

          "While productivity levels have increased worldwide over the past decade"

          but not in the US. income also went up in the past decade. but also not in the US.

          to recite my point again: productivity is in very good correlation of wages and income in general.
    • thumb
      Apr 2 2012: of course we would have 2/5 the supply of food since a farmer couldn't possible work a three day work week and still be successful... and a population increased exponentially due to all that extra leisure time!
      • thumb
        Apr 2 2012: I agree. The population would explode with this amount of leisure time, and then we would still be fighting the same problem of too many mouths to feed. Also I don't think a lot of industries could survive on a 3 day workweek - but farmers would definitely be number 1 on the list.
        • thumb
          Apr 2 2012: You are all so beutifully programmed - to think that life is divided by work and leisure.
          YOu mistake "job" for "work"
          You mistake "entertainment" for "leisure".
          You mistake "psychopath" for "hero".
          You mistake "woman" for "prize".
          And by these mistakes, your lives are arbitrariliy chopped into small allotments by which the crazy farmer runs you like cattle.
          It is the crazy farmer who grows and harvests you.
          If you regain your life:
          turn away from the boxes of seduction,
          abandon the insane hero,
          abandon "job",
          discard your prize and let a woman select you.
          Walk off teh farm and allow your life to relax beyond the fences.
          THen you will not talk of work and leisure,
          then you will wake and live, sleep, rise and live again amongst others who are also whole.
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2012: In a world where innovation and natural law are allowed to take it's course. This world would not be able to feed 7 billion people if this had not already occurred.

    Look at the abundance video with Peter Diamandis or look at the 6 killer apps from Niall Ferguson or look at the work of Norman Borlaug.

    Many people disagree with these nasty facts and that is their prerogative but they are not looking at the way it is. If you just create the rule of law and private property rights (which I will admit is no small trick) and let nature take it's course.
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2012: A termight world

    A world where you can get to those children in hours,not days or weeks.A world where you can evacuate them in hours not days or weeks.It all comes down to response time,the rest is environmental,politics and culture.
    • thumb
      Apr 2 2012: We already have fast distribution. A friend of mine worked on teh logistical model to air-freight fresh food globally.
      2 points:
      The logistic networks we enjoy all run on money.
      That's not so bad, but money is no longer equivalent to "potential value" - it is now equivalent to "potential advantage".
      Whilever money is focussed on advantage, it will generate disadvantage as each individual climbs to gain advantage by stepping on other people like rungs in a hidous ladder. Those at the bottom are crushed.
      WHenever you hear someone talking of the wonders of competiution and the mandate of "property" you are talking to a sociopath/psychopath. This is what appears towards the top of he ghastly ladder of advantage - psychopaths, and at the bottom, starving disenfranchised people. Money itself is a hideous tool of control .. at best it represents true potential value, but as potential advantage(credit/debt) it is a raging fire of apathy and hatred with one, and only one outcome - the total anihilation of the human genome - pretty much there I'd say .. only a couple more years - and only empathy can save us.
      2. With insect models, you have to remember that the collony has only one breeding pair. That changes the game in a fundamental way. THe colony is quick to respond within the collony .. it is more akin to a single distributed creature .. and pheremone communication is slooowwwww. It is very slow to adapt, and can be overwhelmed by any significant change. Humans, on teh other hand have much greater breeding potentail, they can adapt a lot quicker to significant environmental change .. and on top of that, the collony has been internalised into a cranium that further speeds adaptation - by many orders of magnitude.
      • thumb
        Apr 3 2012: Actually i was looking at how the termight grows it's own food.

        Your points are right except i was thinking of a possible future where we as individuals or our childrens children take a more direct approach individually to disasters and famines.

        What's the next great frontier ahead of us?

        Quantum physics?-A.I?-A one world government?-Peace on earth?-Re-engineering our race?

        These things are actually happening now in research except one.


        It will probably be 4 generations before some bright spark stumbles upon it and thats when we will have a response time within hours of any given event anywhere.Sound impossible?

        Here's a link you might like.

        • thumb
          Apr 3 2012: Well, what happens here when there's districts that get hit by disasters, a whole bunch of state emergency groups get activated. Vollunteers get called in to fill manpower if it's a big disaster. Then there's huge fundraising effort for releif funding. We are getting used to it.
          Unfortunately, we cannot do much beyond our national borders. Certainly the fundraising happens .. but what gets done with the funds? WHo knows. But with issues of cultural welfare, it's a circus of error. In trying to address mass alcohol problems and child abuse in the Indigenous communities, the federal government proceeded to further disenfranchise those communities. There is a tribal gulf that cannot be bridged by legislation.
          With the MRI scans - thanks for the link, it's another peice in the puzzle. But I would be looking for the mapping that defines self/other . I would be looking for a couple of different classes. Specifically, I'd be looking for a "programmable" set of structures that can be loaded up with synaptic settings ... in this way, there would be a mechanism to accomodate more than 200 permanent self/other pairs and would be mostly used to track groups of "they". But it would be slow, and it would not be well connected to the body regulators(feelings) - and it would not be available to the continuous forecast/error/correct loop .. and would not be available to group interaction forecasts that did not include "my tribe" (us). THis is the tribal gulf. I do not know how this could be overcome while we are stuck in the selfish advantage game promoted by psychopaths (psychopaths will lack the connection to feelings - either through having deficient self/other structures or by having the body regulator connections missing(genetic defect) - they may be processing self/other relationships in a different part of the brain.
          Anti gravity? La Violette has something to say about that. But I'm not seeing technology as a wonder-pill for all woes. THe internet maybe.
  • Mar 30 2012: As my major solutions to the humanitarian crisis reach the mass, I am convinced the past authorities were informed that 'the future' had so many right solutions that they as past had to leave the future allone by not solving the obvious humanitarian needs.

    We now have reach the future completely because of my upcomming very dynamic work.
    I am not allowed by Ted to promote my solutions here, but I think I may tell the above.