- Scotland Willis
- Boston, MA
- United States
The collective impact of shifting our basic everyday human behaviors, done differently, how much change could we affect?
Suppose we, humanity as a whole, did what we do, differently, meaning carried out our basic human behaviors well-- differently? Then let's say we focused on applying the potential of that change in behavior on specific objectives (climate change, political shifts, water waste, days of random acts of kindness, What if instead of turning on the water to full open, we habitually opened it just an 1/8 or 1/4 turn etc.) The duration, of the perhaps daily world wide initiative, is open for now, but each day this event would occur. You could easily make this model data driven, regarding the impact-- for the world to see. We have seen glimmers of this such as World Peace Day. How long would it take to have an impact on the "scale" of the UID initiative in India, where their registration is up to nearly 1 billion over just two years (granted that discussion and its implications are debatable on either side). Why are we not doing such things? Could we accelerate the change in overall behavior?
As a cost benefit analysis we could use a portion of the resources saved that could then be reallocated to the neediest people as a form of redistribution. While this could require a massive logistical challenge, perhaps we could find a way to scale it so that the meaning were not lost.
What is it about human nature that often decimates the idea of self preservation relative to the way we view our resources; whether it is our personal energies (more people being more kind) or our attitude towards our natural resources? Are the folkways and mores ingrained in such a way that deviating at this point in humanity creates a threat that deters us from doing what is most right relative to humanity's sense of wellness?