This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Connecting the Dots for a Better World
In a high-tech world, where automation is liberating us from monotonous and often painful jobs and labor and at the same time is providing abundance, one must begin to question and rethink how we could and should conduct ourselves here on Earth and what really matters.
A study done by World Hunger Education Service Associates reveals that our world produces enough food to feed everyone, but that the principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food. http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
A MIT report shows that we have 4000 years of untapped clean and renewable geothermal energy that can easily meet the energy needs of tomorrow. http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf On top of that we have solar, wind, wave, tidal and piezoelectric energy sources as well.
So, instead of counting money (as we do today), which has no relevance to the physical world, what if we focused on counting the balance of Earth’s resources? By applying the scientific method for decision-making thus social concern and thus intelligently manage and allocate our finite natural resources based on the carrying capacity of Earth, we could easily create a sustainable planet keeping abundance high, eliminating poverty, decreasing nearly all crimes and violence as a result of eliminating poverty, and move innovation beyond traditional employment thus increasing our quality of life at an exponential rate.
OK, but how could one possibly be able to count and track Earth's resources at any given time maintaining a high abundance for all? Let's visualize it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fSxIT3LixaE
The laws of nature, the way I see it, is the only real true government and regulatory system that has or will ever exist.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Miguel Brinlee
Miguel Brinlee
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Random Chance 30+
While many make fun of him and readily dismiss his ideas out of hand,
should humans be in need of some immediate plan to begin implementing worldwide,
no one else has one, except for those in power and I don't theirs involves
any compassion for humanity at all.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Josh S
The smartest and strongest would be on top, but let's be honest, noone is going to agree to that in this day and age, especially not in the west.
We are moving away from natural laws. We want entitlements, we want equality, we want rights! -and nature doesnt give you any of those rights. Nature doesnt even give you the right to live, you have to fight to survive. Personally, i wouldn't mind this type of government, its so much simpler, but come on now, this would never happen.
Mats Kaarbö 10+
The survival of the fittest is not about intelligence or strength, but the adaptability of change.
"but let's be honest, noone is going to agree to that in this day and age, especially not in the west."
With that attitude it absolutely won't.
Same AsIs
And the rest of your statement is examples of what Mats was talking about not doing...so you would be right in stating that is what is sold creating wants but even that has been going on forever (dreaming of a better life and its example of a guy with all of it)...and we should change, so I agree but saying that I also know we are doing what we are doing cause we are suppose to...
Rex Edward
While we are imposed upon by the laws of nature, we don't have to follow them to live in a state of equilibrium.
Considering food and energy production we are not bound by the laws of nature. We can hydroponically grow food in smaller, mobile, spaces year round. We can solve some problems with fission and produce abundant energy outside the normal confines of a natural environment.
When we put a space station into orbit around the earth we have freed ourselves from the laws of nature that occur on the ground. We can grow food produce atmosphere and energy while in space. We are only limited by the effects of low gravity, radiation exposure and the confined space where we dwell.
Man's survival in a class I civilization is not limited by the physical laws of nature. Man himself is the one restricting function on the path towards establishing such a civilization. Tapping into the geothermal energy within the earth is the cheapest and fastest way to build a Class I civilization and also one of the fundamental factors identifying such a civilization.
Geothermal power would free us from the need and use of all fossil fuels. All fossil fuel products can, eventually, be replaced by other chemical products, including the base chemicals made by oil processing.
Miguel Brinlee
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Oh, absolutely. We would utilize technology to our highest advantage and automate jobs and labor we do not want anymore. Technology is the true liberator that frees us to focus on whats important, whatever that may be. It's not technology that needs to vanish, it's our current mindset. We need to evolve with technology. Technology provides abundance, but our values are hundreds of years old. So the question becomes: "What really matters?"
R H 20+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
R H 20+
Miguel Brinlee
R H 20+
Miguel Brinlee
george lockwood 30+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Iulian Sociale Ingegnere
Krisztián Pintér 200+
natural law is an approach to moral. it states that some moral laws follow from the human nature, thus can not be debated, and not subjective. what those human traits would be, and what morals follow from them is debated. but that is the general idea.
how do you plan to conduct logical reasoning if you don't get your basic terms right?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I don't blame you for having a limited vocabulary of terminologies and the fact that you state you looked up the term on Wikipedia is evidence that you can't have a big one. But, if you study the interrelationship of the title of this post and the description below that elaborates on the title, you will hopefully realize the premise of my idea.
"natural law has nothing to do with resources."
Natural law is defined by nature and resources is a part of that. And my point being is that we have finite resources, which is also defined by nature and therefore we need to manage them intelligently in order to be sustainable.
"natural law is an approach to moral. it states that some moral laws follow from the human nature, thus can not be debated, and not subjective. what those human traits would be, and what morals follow from them is debated. but that is the general idea."
Moral has nothing to do with natural law, the way I define it. Moral is any given value system determined by humans or a society and has nothing to do with the physical world.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
I have to say, it did not surprise me at all that you would say exactly that. But, let's get down to the facts here, in which you have pointed out so conveniently yourself, that 'natural law' has several meanings that depends on the context it is used in. Case closed.
So my question them becomes, what could you possible add to this conversation other than to superimpose your values that, I get a tingling idea, stem from free-market capitalism? What I am talking about goes beyond the current economic and political realm and instead correlates with the real physical world and until you realize this premise and want to engage in a healthy discussion about it, I would prefer that you didn't comment at all. This is not to dismiss your own opinions, but to inspire a more researched and intelligent debate, from your side, on the premise of what I am talking about.
Allan Macdougall 50+
Are you seriously recommending a source of information to someone that you have no need to use yourself? Or perhaps are you saying that you have the entire contents of Wikipedia stored in your head?
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Allan Macdougall 50+
John Smith 30+
Mitt Romney epitomized all that's wrong in this regard when he (who owns 6 homes, including one with a car elevator) said "America" can't afford the $0.10 per adult American per year it costs to fund PBS.
The same is true with food, now that we know global population growth is slowing more and more, we can safely say the problem is distribution: there are just as many people in the world who are overweight as there are people who are malnourished.
One could make the argument that hard working people deserve a bigger share of the pie, but should that mean that those at the bottom should not even receive a minimal standard? And what do we make of this when we consider that the vast majority of poor people in the world do have jobs, are elderly or looking for a job, while I guess I must have been asleep on the day that Mitt Romney saved the Earth from an alien invasion in the morning, cured AIDS in the afternoon and invented nuclear fusion in the evening...
"The idea is simple. Build an economy/society that corresponds with our natural laws. Instead of counting money, we would be counting the balance of the Earth’s resources on a scientific basis."
This is not unlike the idea behind the "energy accounting" economy (a form of resource based economics) first proposed by the technocracy movement. Currency would be based on an energy standard and some sort of tax system would make it more attractive to recycle instead of mining scarce resources (natural resource reserves are seen as an asset themselves). From past experience with the gold standard we know a fixed amount of transferable currency won't work well (it tends to get stuck in rich people's pockets), therefore the currency has to be non-transferable.
Allan Macdougall 50+
How would you start to build an economy based on natural laws when politicians and corporate leaders exhibit selective blindness when it comes to the overwhelming evidence from climate scientists?
Mats Kaarbö 10+
Excellent point, Allan. You start by educating people on whats possible, technically, for a better world and don't start by pointing out their shortcomings as a result of their actions. Then you loose them. Find common ground and get under their skin till they themselves realize how unsustainable and unsane their current values are and hope they change for the better. That's really the only thing you can do. Good luck!
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Allan Macdougall 50+
You forgot to mention that we are also responsible for the media we get. The media publishes what it likes because we willingly buy into their opinions and become almost blindly loyal to them. The trajectory of opinions thus formed, are governed more by that loyalty - not necessarily the value of the opinions.
It's similar with politics. Party political loyalty profoundly devalues the valid opinions of individual politicians. Like any belief system, it wipes out the spark of autonomous, incisive intelligence needed to act upon the scourge of merely counting money, and instead counting the balance of the Earth’s resources. And it spreads via the media to impressionable voters.
Changing such loyalties towards 'crowd intelligence' (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) is in my opinion responsible for the seeming blindness I alluded to earlier.
Decentralising to locally based government/economies would be a good place to start.
p s
Mats Kaarbö 10+