TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

The biggest threat to mankind. What will end the world as we know ?

Does the world need to be saved ? Are we heading toward an inevitable extinction ? will that be a new generation bomb ? or will it be pollution ? will it be depletion of natural resources ? or will the machines be our killers as it is suggested in many sci-fi stories ?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jun 23 2012: Continued from the previous post...

    Having said all that, now we can see, mankind has created all the possibilites - politically, naturally and economically - to destroy his own race. Nature might even favor the need since it needs its own survival. At the same time, if we take the fact which I previously mentioned - "Nature keeps all its extinct species in their simple forms" - we can say not the entire mankind would fall extinct. There'd be a little amount of population that might survive the danger.

    And this population would have survived the extinct because they might have reached the next step of evolution, may be by learning from mistakes or by totally understanding the social structure by it's original value, which is that a human needs another human, another living being and the whole system of nature for his own survival.

    If you wonder, how that big evolution step could be, I'd like to give you all a hint which might ignite your answer or exploration towards the answer. There were and are a lot of philosophers and people like Nietzche, Jesus, Buddha who attempted, said and searched for one simple idea by identifying the need for it.. NEW MAN.... :)
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2012: This is the most thought provoking comment I received in this conversation, I must admit.
      and you have a beautiful way of putting it that doubles the effect.
      we are all talking about the concept of NEW MAN without knowing it. all the talks we have on the NEW WORLD indirectly includes the emergence of a NEW MAN that either creates or lives in it.
      I would rather survive the possible self-termination of mankind and not continue life as happy monkeys under the moonlight by the seashore as Mike suggests and instead be sophisticated enough to solve communication conflicts. Isn't it possible ?
      • Jun 26 2012: Yeah.. Might be possible Sina. This idea of New Man got lot of physical, mental, socialogical attributes to it.

        As all species live in different groups, Homosapiens too happened to live in various groups for different reasons. Particularly, in anthropological view the blood lineage became an important reason to facilitate legal sexual bonds to produce legitimate heirs who can be accounted to the society unit. And we all know what this has turned into. Groups became castes, religions and then they became business enterprises wanting more consumers and so created God as product. Naturally as the number of groups increased, the conflicts between them increased creating invasions, countries, so on and so forth.

        What a man needs basically and why he needs it? Happiness? If we can bifurcate this idea, as they say, being happy is an art. The beauty of truth is that it is so simple to understand but man's preconclusive nature is making this realisation to be very far from understanding.

        As long as we give the reason to be happy to others or tools, we not gonna achieve it, since they or those tools doesn't have the necessity to make us happy anyways. We fail to understand that those people or tools actually become separate entities which in turn create goals, ideas for their own survival.

        For an animal, to be in group, is a factor of convenience. But if it happens to be alone it's got its own instinct to survive. But for man, living in group, is a factor of necessity. If he happens to be alone, he won't survive. Because his instinct of survival is directly proportional to his interaction with society. The problem is when man uses this necessity for his convenience.
      • Jun 26 2012: The animal instinct which is man's subconscious mind(when I say Mind, I use the term as a metaphor of brain and dna combinations) inherits the residue of our ancestral animals(not just human ancestors). But the conscious mind, on the contrary, has formulated an entirely different mind which is not used to this subconscious any time before (because no ancestral species needed a friendly chat while having coffee). Thus a man gets ripped off between his animal instinct and human instict. The basic idea of these conflicts is that subconscious feelings are getting suppressed. These feelings usually would be lust for life, lust for money, lust for fame, lust for identity and so on.

        So now humans are in a juncture where they have to choose either the subconscious mind or the conscious mind to take upper hand. In a way, they have to annihilate any of these two. Eliminating the conscious mind would retain us as animals. Eliminating the subconscious mind would take us to the next step of evolution.

        Seeing the world's condition we can say what we seeing is the lust for winning. This lust for winning could be for fame, money or identity. This demolishes the purpose of nature in evoluting man to a completely different form giving the responsibility of his own survival by cutting off from the previous nodes, leading to completely a new tree of evolution. That's the NEW MAN.

        Man has succeeded a little in this purpose by forming a society with relations and values. But he failed miserably in taking this to next level. He's having the animal instinct of looking for his own survival instead of looking for the whole mankind's survival.
      • Jun 26 2012: One can see a contradiction here. A man relies on society till he grows up and then he neglects it. Needless to say it's from the society a man takes all his inputs before and after his growth. We can conceive one thing in this. That is idea to form a society is right because it's the nature's need for man's survival. But the way he has formed the society is not right because it's against the nature, which in turn, is against his own survival.

        A society where the man's living is to help other men and where the man's happiness has become intuitive would be the New Society and that man would be the New Man.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.