TED Conversations

Ahmed Ben Yaghlen

Student, Youth & Science Association of Tunisia

This conversation is closed.

How to build our future without destroying the Earth ?

I want to talk with the members of TED community about our future and our children's future because it is important to us, how to develop without destroying.


Closing Statement from Ahmed Ben Yaghlen

In this society the young people from the cities and from the countryside, professionals or not, often the world's leaders , have all means to join and reinforce our efforts to raise the brave torch of the protection our home that illuminates the way in which the future of us all is decided.

  • Jul 24 2012: Don't wory about earth. We are not destroying the earth, the earth can take care of itself. We are destroying ourself.
    The question is why?
  • Aug 1 2012: For me, working to find ways to live simply and sustainably has freed up some of my personal resources to support things that I care about. By going without some luxeries, by consuming few animal products and few processed foods, by buying second hand items when possible, by choosing to not have children, by living in a small (500 sq. ft) home and sharing an efficient car, my partner and I have made it possible to have more time to volunteer and more money to give to causes that we believe will help make the world a more peaceful place. We have also been able to pursue education in ways that would not be possible if we had become entagled in a more expensive lifestyle.

    Ultimately, to answer your question, I think that if people can demonstrate that there is real value in living simply, we may begin to build a culture that can "build a future without destroying it."

    If those who are motivated (and as they are able to), can live artfully, we may show that by living simply we are actually able to enjoy more personal freedom, have more control over where our money is directed and demostrate the ability to make some tangible and postive changes in our community (and world.) By this, we may begin to develop a broader culture that realizes that "wealth" is not something that is attained from the puruit of money but is aquired through the pursuit of a meaningful life.

    People may learn to value and pursue a quality of life that is not dependent upon the accumulation of material "valueables." Life itself will become the treasure.
    • thumb
      Aug 1 2012: Juniper Blue,
      That is so beautifully expressed, and apparently "lived" by you! I totally agree that there is GREAT value in living simply, in that we learn more about our own creativity, while artfully enjoying more personal freedom and having more control over where our money is directed, while making changes in ourselves and our community.....including the global community we all share. When we realize that life itself is the treasure, as you insightfully say, we learn more about the meaning of our lives, which many people seem to be seeking:>)
      • Aug 5 2012: Thanks for the support Colleen ... there are days when I am not sure I am making a difference but we all do what we can. We are in this together!
        • thumb
          Aug 5 2012: My pleasure Juniper Blue, and you too!

          We are indeed in this together, and the more we remember that, the better for all of us. There are days when I'm not sure I'm making a difference either. When we look at the big picture, making a difference sometimes seems overwhelming. On a deep level, however, I believe every small, or large step we take DOES make a difference....if even in my own heart and mind:>)

          I am grateful to grow up in a family (60+ years ago) which recycled, restored, renovated, reused, EVERYTHING, as well as grew our own food. These practices were carried out partly because of limited financial resources while raising a family of 8 kids, and partly because my parents were aware of protecting the earth.

          Back then, I do not recall any talk about the earth being threatened...they simply did things to respect and protect the earth, which sustains us. So, I learned the "simple living" practices as a child, and would never change those practices regardless of the circumstantes. For me, it is the most natural way of "being" for my own peace of mind and heart:>)
    • thumb
      Aug 5 2012: I would invite you to take a look at

      The Quixote Project at http://jpssis.com/index.html

      And help us in our quest of the perfect windmill.
      A simple idea that could help in a significant way
      to build our future without destroying the earth.
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: I think we must change our "economic" philosophy.
    We have to pass from the philosophy of consumer to the philosophy of balance and recovery.
  • Jul 29 2012: A fundamental change in outlook is also required. Dump GDP and HDI and use a new term which maybe called ODI or optimised development index. this index would define how much do you impact the environment to lead a reasonable quality of life. that will give a clear picture of how countries are performing. for example developed countries may have high GDP and high HDI but if they spend 10times as much than othe countries for the same level of HDI they will rank lower. So ODI would be HDI / environmental impact ( in very rough terms) that will change how we look at development.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2012: Siddharth,
      I agree with what you are saying....especially that a change in outlook is required. How do you perceive a new term helping to move us forward with a new outlook? We know how countries are performing....do we not? I'm sorry to say the country I live in is the highest consumer, and knowing we are the highest consumer hasn't seemed to change our use of resources. So, how do you see changing the terms we use facilitating change?
      • Jul 29 2012: i think it will change the way what a common man thinks is good or bad. If you look at how we look at stock market we want to buy stock of companies that make most money, not the most efficient. We demand more and more profits which needs more and more consumption. Now thats what GDP was doing like how big my economy is compared to yours. Then HDI was invented which is a better indicator, but what it still misses is Optimisation factor. You could achieve a HDI of .95 which is very high, but one country may spend half of the other in terms of environment to achieve the same level of HDI.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2012: Hello again Siddharth:>)
          Who would implement this?
      • Jul 30 2012: Hi Colleen,

        A reputed economist possibly should come up with this new index and persuade governments via the UN to adopt it. HDI for example was not introduced not long ago.

        I hope someone comes up with a better index soon.
        • thumb
          Aug 1 2012: Dear Siddharth,
          I am very much in favor of ANYTHING that might contribute to peace, harmony, safe and responsible growth in our world. Although I was understanding what you are talking about on a conceptual level, there was a question popping into my mind...HOW THE HECK DO WE DO THAT???

          I just connected with the link Barry provided, and it makes more sense to me now. I've been involved with this process on local and regional levels, and I simply was not perceiving how it could be implemented on a larger scale....but WHY NOT???

          Thanks to all of you (Siddharth, Barry and Pavan) for helping me to see beyond my own limitations:>)
    • Jul 31 2012: Hello Siddharth,

      I agree with your idea. I think a measure of sustainable growth would make an impact on people, especially students. It is one thing to have a vague idea that we are harming our world, and it is another to see a measure which shows that year after year it is getting worse. It would also point to countries that are better, and give us an idea where to look for better practices.

      Developing this measure will not be easy. It involves placing a value on all of the different ways we impact our environment. How do you place a value on the extinction of a song bird? Check out this talk:


      Difficulties should not stop this. It will require an economist, but many others as well.
      • Aug 1 2012: Thanks for that link. Its interesting. As Peter Drucker said - if you can measure it you can manage it.
      • thumb
        Aug 1 2012: Thanks for the link Barry....very informative, and it helped me understand Siddharth's suggestion:>)

        Barry, you say it is one thing to have a vague idea that we are harming our world, and it is another to see a measure which shows us how and why. This reminds me of when I started serving on the local planning commission and development review boards many years ago.

        We have "Wetland Rules" in this state....it's illegal to fill in wetlands. I knew that, but I didn't really know why. When I got on the boards, applicants came in with arguments in favor of filling in wetlands for development, and I realized that the members of the boards who had served for many years didn't know why either.

        So, I contacted a staff member of the Agency of Natural Resources, and asked the question. Why? What is the impact? Fascinating! In a nut shell, wetlands filter and clean our water. If we fill in a majority of our wetlands, we are compromising the natural water filter, thereby threatening the safety of our water resources.

        I think/feel that developing a measure is easier when we have appropriate information. We cannot place a value on something if we do not honestly know why it might have value.

        In our local process, the developers were oftern simply looking at the value to THEMSELVES, without considering the value to the whole. As Pavan points out...we need to "perceive the difference between public benefits and private profits".

        It is interesting and encouraging to see the progress we have made on the local and regional levels regarding this issue. Developers and engineers are now more aware of the impact of the wetlands, and are creating plans which not only preserve the existing wetlands, but ADD to the function of wetlands by building rain gardens, water detension ponds, using permeable materials for sidewalks/parking lots, etc.

        As I observe this very small change on a local/regional level, I realize we can ALL contribute to the process as a global community:>)
  • thumb
    Jul 29 2012: Hello Ahmed Ben Yaghlane:>)
    We can develop our future without destroying the earth with awareness. It is important for each and every one of us to do our part to be good stewards of the space we occupy. Science continues to give us information regarding what is good and what is not so good in the goal to preserve our earth for future generations. In addition to attention to what the future might be like, it would benefit all of us to care about the circumstances we live in here and now, in the present.

    There used to be development without concern for the environment, and I believe we are changing that paradigm. As a member of local and regional planning commissions and developement review boards, and transportation advisory committee for the past 10-15 years, I am observing and encouraging the changes.

    We are now seeing more permeable/semi permeable materials used for sidewalks and parking lots, which decreases the impact of storm water runoff. We are seeing developers plant rain gardens, green roofs, install more solar collectors and wind turbines. There is an increase in park and rides, to encourage less use of cars, bikeracks are more plentiful and more easily accessable, and public transportation is becoming more of a focus, etc.

    These steps seem very small, in a small area, when we look at the big picture, and if each of us does our small part, it will lead to change on a larger scale. Each of us also needs to be aware of how, why, when and where we consume resources. We, as a global community (collective intelligence) need to be mindful of our resources and make every attempt possible to protect the earth which sustains us.
  • Jul 28 2012: The answer is pretty simple - optimize consumption, stop and reduce population growth and invest in education and awareness. Less number of people means less resources required. This will also put an end to blatant number based capitalism, put less strain on earth's natural resources and make world war free...
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2012: I always wish to ask each person with this proposal if they are proposing that they themself not exist or is this the mantle they expect someone else, someone less ;"worthy' in their estimation to assume?
      I always feel like suggesting " you go first and perhaps we will follow"!
      I am the mother of five kids who were born in a country that needs immigration to survive and I cannot imagine undoing any of them. The world needs each one and so do I.
      • Jul 28 2012: Hi, What I mean is it is not a forced decision. So I would never ask anyone to have less number children. That's entirely their own decision. But I would not hesitate making them aware of the consequences and especially for their own children in the future in a resource constrained world. Also I believe that every one may not be aware of the big picture. People like to live in their little worlds and don't blame them for that. What I am trying to say is raise the awareness so people at least have the information of the big picture so they can take wise decisions for themselves and their children. p.s. Americans (5% of world population) consume 40% of world resources. China and India want to be the same as US i.e. consume more and more. So you can see for yourself what's going to happen 20 years from now.
        • thumb
          Jul 28 2012: Siddharth Malani , thanks for caring enough to address my concerns. I am fully aware of all of your stats, as I live in a country which accepts a huge amount of immigration from the countries you mention and accords those persons greater human rights than they found in their home lands and as I am a woman who lives in Canada, who has an MA and an MBA. I rasied responsible people who contribute greatly and who consume in proper proportion.
  • Jul 26 2012: The only way to advance and save the the earth is to just be mindful. In the past, when the first internal combustion engine was developed, no one was worried about CO2 in the atomsphere causing global warming. Now we know. In the past we didn't know eating fatty foos was bad, we just ate it cause it was good. We now know. We now know so much about the world, compared to what we knew in past. The problem with mankind, is that we seem to be a species of apathy, and afterthought. we do for the sake of doing, and we don't consider the long-term. if we want this world to be a better place for us and our children, then we need to strive for long-term benefit, rather than short-term satisfaction. We need to think about the power we possess as aspecies and our effect on the earth we live on. We cannot live without advancement, in technology, in medicine, etc... but we have to understand what that advancement will cost, and be prepared to deal with the consequences. If we wnat a better future, we need use our prefrontal cortices, and plan ahead.
  • Aug 17 2012: By implementing a resource-based economy as fast as we can. A resource-based economy is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few.

    The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

    A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

    A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
  • thumb
    Aug 9 2012: It's not primarily about wealth, jobs, or resources. It's about mutual respect. Respect for knowledge and understanding and willingness to work. By taking care of the "least able" first we can then assure the future. Until then Wealth, Jobs and Resources will remain just something to be jealous about.
  • Aug 8 2012: You need to understand that everything in the universe is connected, we will develop, but life as we know it will change. This is true just now and it will always be true.
    • thumb
      Aug 17 2012: When one man dream is just a dream. But when many men dream together, it is the beginning of a new reality
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2012: By colonising other planets. Industrialisation has been shown to destroy the environment. Just look at the mess China is in as they become industrialised. The UK had its industrial revolution and now we import our needs from China and other countries. The Earth will not be destroyed by human beings although we will probably do a good job at destroying ourselves and other fauna and flora in the meantime. The Earth will continue: its been going over four billion years! Humans have been around for a mere 200,000 years. It is our nature to breed and to consume all available resources and then move on to greener pastures. As the greener pastures get eaten up we will end up being forced to colonise other planets to mine their resources and so on.....Without colonisation of other planets the Earth will simply end up stripped mined of all commodities and when this happens the population will naturally decrease due to wars over the remaining resources until what is left of the population is in balance with the environment. The cycle will start again most probably.
  • thumb
    Aug 8 2012: For every step that you take, try your best to make sure that you won't be sorry for it.
  • Aug 6 2012: IMO, the best way to build our future without destroying the Earth is to mimic nature and the environmental systems it has established.
  • Aug 5 2012: Are we the only animal which consciously builds toward the future, hmm? This puts us in a very strange position in regards to nature as a whole. We also may be the only species which will live in misery believing that the suffering will bring about a better future for us and those we love. This trait is easily manipulated by those willing to do so and as long as there are those willing to use the kindness of others as a stepping stone to a "better future" while giving none in return, we won't be able to realize the society that we want to be a part of. We may still have many, many thousands of years ahead of us, learning the basics of civility. But there is nothing wrong with that.

    Basically, the end never justifies the means. The means is all there is. We need to learn this before we can live peacefully together on this earth.
  • Aug 2 2012: Denied emotions in each individual act out in behavior Such unconsciousness is the root of the problem we face in developing a sustainable value structure. Objective science has convinced us all that the subjective only leads to distorted knowledge. This the essential process of self realization through introspection has not developed.

    If we learn to value and understand the subjective aspect of our being we will be on the way to sustainable prosperity
  • thumb
    Jul 30 2012: I think we need to go back to understanding what being a "civilized" society means. We are a very "uncivilized" society with the way Governments treat people, the way corporations treat each other, the way we treat the Earth, committing acts that just aren't deemed civil at all but justifying it with words like "But it's just business" or "It's the Law". Why "just"? Why "The"? and why does that make it OKAY? I think we need to find a civil and moral backbone and pull the reins in on going "too far" and letting our egos get in the way of "doing the right thing by society".
  • Jul 29 2012: Live closer to nature .
    Eat fresh food , drink fresh water from nature ,
    walk , jog and bike instead of cars.
    Avoid staying up late.
    Build house from wood and bamboo instead of concrete and glasses .
  • Jul 28 2012: Use the almost limitless information at your disposal via the Internet, and make sure that you convert that knowledge into solutions that will help the generation after
  • Jul 27 2012: Bicycle more! We need a pedaling revolution. Old tech that will easily solve many of our current and future ills. Congestion, urban sprawl, obesity, co2 emissions, depression and anxiety, road rage. We don't need high tech solutions but simple behavioral change.
    • thumb
      Jul 28 2012: I would argue that, at this point time, high tech solutions are the easiest kind of solution. Behavioral changes are much harder. Behavior is embedded in the structures of our society, in both abstract structures like our cultural narratives and concrete structures like our infrastructure. How do you create this bicycling movement? There are some things you can't do without a car to the same level of convenience. Our road systems and building placements were built as though cheap oil was a given. How do you undo the inertia of existing systems? Starting a revolution is much harder than creating a piece of high-tech equipment, in my opinion. [At the least, the economic incentives and opportunity cost make starting a revolution much less attractive, even though I think plenty of people are capable of driving such changes.]
  • Jul 27 2012: We need people to come together and collaborate no matter the cost. Our global community is lacking in acceptance and the ability to communicate together effectively. Once we as a race can move past our own wants and beliefs, we can truly prosper. Science isn't what needs to be improved to save our world. The human population needs to be improved.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Jul 25 2012: If we first fix the economic model that too many cherish, we can do almost anything. It is the economic model that encourages pillaging of our resources and destroying our environment. Such rewards are paid for such behaviors! There ARE other economic models that do not do that, where the amount of money that you have does not constitute your worth or value to a society. Money isn't even necessary, unless you want to establish a class system.

    As it is mathematically guaranteed that the Ponzi scheme that we call our economic model is going to collapse sooner rather than later, in addition to learning how to live differently, we should all be learning about possible alternatives, so that those who enslaved us with such corruption as we see all around us, are not re-entrenched.
  • thumb
    Jul 25 2012: Truly an interresting question. Of course we have our money-based system which can help us to invest more money in greener solutions for our planet. But i think that this system is basically destroying itself. So we can't get a greener world with just having invested a lot of money.We have to have people who have the WILL. Unfortunately that's what we have a lack of now since we have learned that money can solve our problems. We need to come together and DO things instead of waiting for investments, cause the investments are not the problem. It's the want of saving the planet.
  • Jul 25 2012: I will do my part by stop consuming; by supporting local micro farms and by using bicycles. This is not something the government or big business is going to fix and as long as we support companies and products we truly believe in we'll can teach our children what is right.

    Community is what we relied on to survive for many years then economics changed that but truly nothing changed except our beliefs and expectations from ourselves and the people around us.

    It does not matter whether we find the next big thing if we do not know why we are living for. When we can stand shoulder to shoulder and sit down for one cause then we may have some hope.

    Be vigilant and be true to self finding the communities we once loved, preparing the family and friend dinners, socializing quarterly celebrations, helping the neighbor without expectations with a simple smile. Because we are what we eat and our brains are like sponges soaking up anything and everything, do onto others as...


    I will do my part... How about you?
    • Jul 31 2012: Ahmed and Joshua, I think you are both right.

      This mess we have created must be fixed with both short term action and long term thinking. We all have to do our part, and we have to change our governments.

      In the west we can change our governments for the better in two ways: First, vote for people who think long term. Second, teach our children the meaning and consequences of sustainable and non-sustainable. Then they will vote with more wisdom.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: 1- It is finally time we talk about the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the worlds population.
    2 - We need to stop governments around the world from prevent competition and innovation.
    3 - We need to produce products with no planned obsolescence, with ease of recycling as a design criteria.
    4 - We need to create the cheapest possible renewable energy we can in the $5-$10 / Mwh range.
    5 - We need to look at the fact that we have been using the same horrible design for car engines for 100 years, and replace the design with something more efficient.
    6- etc
    7- etc

    I could go on for hours.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: 1- It is finally time we talk about the 800 lb gorilla in the room, the worlds population.

      I agree, this is our largest impact, the billions of humans. Even with energy efficiency, better farming practices, and densification, population will continue to be the biggest factor in the stress we put on our environment. If we do not find a way to make our population growth sustainable it will correct itself. I don't like Malthusiasm, but it is a hard argument to refute.
      It looks as though education, prosperity, and good healthcare slow down population growth. That can seem a little counter intuitive. Some projections for population growth suggest we will plateau at 10 billion people.

      Suggested Ted Talks on this subject: 1) Bill Gates: Mosquitos, malaria and education 2) Hans Rosling: Religions and babies. There are others, but these two are quite insightful.
    • thumb
      Jul 26 2012: 2 - We need to stop governments around the world from prevent competition and innovation.

      I had to read this a couple of times. I think I know what David means. Maybe not. It touches on quite a few important topics, governments, competition and innovation. It may be a question of terms but I may be disagreeing with David on this one. Again, maybe not. First the terms.

      Government - I think government is doing a much better job than we give it credit for in protecting ideas, and regulating the marketplace. Government is an improvised invention and varies from state to state, country to country and by level, levels being city, state, federal and world levels. For comparison consider China and the USA. China does not protect patents, USA does. China has a tradition of decision making with a timeline measured in generations, USA's decision making (at the Federal level) of the first 100 days of a presidential term and the next sound bite. Both are doing much better than my sound bite comparison can account for.

      Competition: This is a hot word. Most of what is created in this world is the result of cooperation, not competition. Companies may compete with other companies, but most of the effective delivery of products and services is the result of finely tuned cooperation within the company. Competition adds juice to the creative process, but the creative process is 90% cooperative through the free flow of ideas, the synergy between individuals and the lattice of cooperative mechanisms we have built; roads, schools, telecommunications, shared laws, monetary systems, etc, all of which are usually glossed over in the discussion of competition. Competition is best when it gets us to do our best.

      Innovation; My favorite fantasy, write a book, invent a product, write a song, get it patented/trademarked/copyrighted and become a millionaire from the fees. My best ideas come from wanting to solve problems, not from mucho monero.

      I ran out of ...
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: ""2 - We need to stop governments around the world from prevent competition and innovation. ""

        With the way we currently structure and run businesses, every business is driven to monopoly. After companies reach the end of their growth cycle and fill a given space, they tend to push for laws and regulation at the local, state, federal, and international levels to prevent competition.

        As an example, the telecom provides have gotten zoning codes, laws, and regulations enacted that stifle any competition in their given markets. We have local laws that prevent the installation of new cables on telephone pole, underground, and in apartment complexes. We have state laws that prevent towns and counties from installing competing systems. At the federal-national level we have a push to close down super WiFi (US) and Skype (Ethiopia, Russia, etc).

        You also see this with Pharma (All of them), Content (RIAA, MPAA), Software (Microsoft), etc.

        "Competition adds juice to the creative process, but the creative process is 90% cooperative... "

        One thing to say to that ... Agreed.
  • Jul 24 2012: Stop listening to the fear mongers and.....
    stop listening to the faith mongers too.

    Faith it will all work out, means not wanting to have to do something.
    Faith also means not wanting to know the truth.

    Somehow, someway and someday it will just work out.
    Well it won't and it will. It will work itself out, but without compassion, caring, nurturing, help or safety and security.

    That's not fear-mongering (it's sanity), but action is what works. Hope is false, faith is blind and both don't work.

    Ghandi said, "nothing you do will change anything. It is only important that you do it." That's not faith. That's action. It isn't hope 'cause hope is no action.

    It's action and action breaks paralysis, especially the paralysis of fear, which is only masquerading as....
    False Evidence Appearing Real.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2012: to find alternative ways for energy which are earth friendly.
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2012: We already have a stable of exciting ideas that need to be implemented and allowed a chance to work. Just because they did not get implemented 10 years ago might only mean that the time and other resources were not ready. Let's try them now. All of the old experts should still observe but try to be positive and include all the periphrial advancement. In psychology that giving up thing is called a stage of dispair by some theorists. Its contrast is generativity and its time that a lot of us got on board.
  • thumb
    Jul 23 2012: This is an interesting debate. As you may know, earth's resources are not unlimited and the way we are consuming today we are going to run out from vital resources and the aftermath will be chaotic. We have to lower our consumption, develop greener, promote sustainability. We have to act before we reach a irreversible point. But to do so, everyone must follow this move and I'm not sure that we have reached today this way of thinking.
    • Jul 23 2012: I agree and I also think that governments need to put more money toward green projects and research and gradually penalize over consumption through fees and extra taxes?
    • thumb
      Jul 24 2012: how is that possible by lower our consumption? when everyone is competing with each other? when everyone wants more? I
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2012: Well, that why I said that we are not (yet ?) in the spirit of making a viable future for our planet. Sadly, everyone is trying to grab more profits at the expense of earth's resources. If I had to change something today I would change the way people are thinking and raise the priority of this topic. Governments have others priorities but time won't forgive us when it will be too late to act.
  • thumb
    Aug 19 2012: We need to create Banks that helps the people, and in turn the people helping the banks
    For example, you have a debt to pay and don’t have the money at this time, you can go to this banks and ask for their help. These Banks can do 1 of 2 things,
    1. Set up a way they can pay of their debt. Could be by working for the bank and help their local area and community
    2. The Banks should start a Community with the people and know the general information about them (what they do for a living so on...) Example: There’s a big project going in the area to put up a solar wind turbine and not enough man power or right tools.
    The company can call their local bank and ask for helping hand, and see if the rite person is available to contribute.

    I think this is a very good idea, because it brings use together as a hole and makes use fill like we are part of something bigger then are self’s. This opportunity can really help use out in the long run.
    What do you guys think?
    Thanks for your Time.
  • Aug 15 2012: Overpopulation is what lies underneath this issue. Better technologies to increase the human lifespan, will increase the population problems. we live on the resources that the earth gives us, air, water, food. But this resources need their own "time and space" to replenish. Overpopulation means then that this resources will have less "space" to replenish and at the same point less time, because of the urge of feeding more people in shorter periods of time. To build a better earth 1 we should cut off the use of fossil fuels, And look for natural alternative ways of feeding, Maybe algae or something that can be produced fast and that can supply our daily consumption needs