TED Conversations

Mats Kaarbø

TEDCRED 10+

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.

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    R H 20+

    • 0
    Oct 12 2012: I didn't know what 'Natural Law' (NL) was. I had to look it up. It seems that it's defined as laws found in nature, therefore universally applicable, with human reason being the guidance for human morality. You then referred to 'scientific method' (SM) as the basis for decision making in regards to our limited natural resources. Reasoning for moral development has therefore become SM for resource management. But SM, by definition, does not include morality as a component of its method. SM is measurements observed and conclusions deduced in repeatable patterns. It would seem that nature would not be so constrained by such limiting human methodology. Although SM has produced many wonders and is responsible for our progressive way of life, it has produced nearly as many disasters and abominations - I believe precisely because it is without morality. I would argue therefore that SM is now only a tool for discovery, not a determinate of decision-making. Also, we are learning through science, experience, and historical results that much of what we understood of nature is insufficient for new realities. This is throwing our morality into turmoil. So our concept of NL is insufficient, our morality is in turmoil, and SM is not a good determiner of decision-making or, certainly, 'social design'. This is not a good foundation to build a new economy on. In my humble opinion, we need new methods of moral development, new wisdoms gleaned from nature and our expanding knowledge of our universe, to create new wholistic directions of social and economic evolution. NL and SM got us to where we are, but are not enough to get us where we're going.
    • thumb
      Oct 14 2012: I feel we need to transcend the concept of morality and simply accept our natural laws and live within those boundaries, if we are to have a slightly chance to survive as a species. It all comes back to the question of what really matters. Do we want to end poverty and human suffering or do we want to be "free" to buy anything we want on the cost of others? If we aspire towards the first, morality would be naturally designed into a new social design within the boundaries of the physical world. The only way to do just that is to apply the scientific method for all societal decision, in order to maintain sustainable, if that is something we desire of course.
      • thumb

        R H 20+

        • 0
        Oct 15 2012: Thank you for responding. I think we want the same thing, but disagree on the approach. For me, scientific method is too limited a technique for humanistic and moral (read: social) objectives. Combined with natural law, we would have reason, our current understanding of how nature works (no matter how limited or ultimately inaccurate), and 'measurement' for social decision-making. Is it not reasonable that survival of the fittest (current natural law) and competitive self-determination (current economic theory) is a successful wealth generating system? Scientifically speaking it is, but morally reprehensible on distributive grounds. But our current understanding of morality is impotent anyway. Most critics of 'injecting' morality into social decision making feel that we cannot impose arbitrary morality across cultural lines - that it's a 'personal' decision. Our current capabilities with scientific method are great for manipulating our physical universe, but completely inadequate for determining our direction as humans. So we need something more. I believe we are on the verge of a transformation unlike any before. And just like we can't use a hammer to build or repair a super-computer, current moral and scientific capabilities are inadequate for the future direction of our society. But that's me...
    • Oct 14 2012: I am curious RH and would appreciate some reminders/examples of "disasters and abominations" produced by the scientific method. Just 2 or 3 of the big examples would be plenty if you get the chance.
      • thumb

        R H 20+

        • 0
        Oct 15 2012: 2 that come to mind: Lobotomies and eugenics. Also, economic and environmental exploitation could be interpreted as based on scientific method.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.