This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there a realistic approach to provide a "comfortable" way of life to every human being on the word? Can the Earth support it?
I'm sure you have, at one time or another, asked yourself how many earths would we need to satisfy the needs of everyone.
Or a matrix like infinite world will be the solution?
Science fiction has come up with a lot of ideas, but are we really getting closer or further away from eradicating poverty? and I don't mean just to ease the suffering, but to actually make it disappear.
Is money part of the solution or part of the problem?
Or maybe the world can handle us all and more!
What do you think?
Debra Smith 200+
Bill Liao 500+
Energy sources for everyone to have the lifestyle of the top5% do not exist though
Richard Roose
1. There is enough resources in this world to end poverty forever. The problem is that most of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a small percentage of the population. For instance, in the US, 25% of the population owns 87% of the wealth. This amounts to approximately 54 trillion dollars. Do the very wealthy need that much? The situation is far worse in other countries around the world. If this excess wealth were to be divided more equally, say 50% for the top 25% and the other 37% used to fund job creating and technology producing enterprises. We could accomplish this in this country, not by confiscating the wealth, but rather by forcing the wealthiest to invest in the kind of enterprises I mentioned above. We would simply be forcing the very rich to do what they should already be doing since in the long run it will be most beneficial to them.
2. We could do much toward alleviating our problems and poorness in this country by the elimination crime, which can be accomplished quite painlessly by simply eliminating traceless paper currency and going to an all-electronic system as the many Americans have already done. No criminal is going to take something that can be traced directly to him or her as any money transfer in an all-electronic would be traceable. Do you think any drug dealer is going to take plastic on the street corner in exchange for his drugs? Do you think that a street mugger would rip off a little old lady for a worthless piece (to him) of plastic? If you are worried about hackers and security, forget it. If the all-electronic monetary system were not as secure as humanly possible, the present world financial system would collapse tomorrow, as almost 100% of international money transfers are made electronically. The present cost of crime in America is approaching 1 trillion dollars a year. Can you imagine what half of that amount would accomplish toward improving our educational system?
Comment deleted
Richard Roose
I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean that eliminating cash from society would not prevent most crime; or do you mean than eliminating crime is a bad idea?
Money which does not circulate in the economy cannot be used to invest in job or technology producing enterprises. What you suggest is the current situation which must be changed if mankind is to solve the intractable problems we face.
J B
Gisela McKay 30+
As long as "success" is defined as "having what others do not" rather than being personally fulfilled, we will have inequity. End of story.
Until we shift that, there's no amount of earths/resources/food/water/whatever in the universe that can be equitably distributed. Someone is always going to hoard.
Zaz Tao 30+
The world's ecosystems are declining not purely because of human population, but largely due to corporate power utilizing every tool at its disposal to increase its financial and political power. The imperatives of the business model are to increase profit by reducing cost and maintaining or increasing price. Price is typically euphemized by the term "value." These imperatives result in reducing employee numbers and compensation, distorting public discourse with manipulative public relations and influencing government against the greater good.
As the middle and lower classes get driven down in economic prosperity, broader concerns about the future of the ecosystem and social concerns are abandoned for the near term goal of survival. A boat that tips too far one way tends to sink. Education, talent, skill ... all the things that could build a better future, rot. There is a growing need for many endeavors that will not provide a sizable profit margin.
Jeff Rodman 200+
We can't say whether a comfortable way of life is possible until we've defined "a comfortable way of life." I like Jack Canty's overview. And to put some framing around the scope of things, we should posit that "comfortable" is not private jets, mansions and butlers for everyone, nor is it starving naked in the bushes. It's somewhere in the middle, probably the lower-middle (which leaves me some explaining to do to my beloved spouse). Health support, good food, water, access to move-around space, soccer fields, cellos, and decent wine and stuff.
We also need a definition of "everyone." Let's assume the current population; if we have a methodology to answer the question for that, we can scale up and down as the social issues change.
With that, I suspect that the planet could support who we have without much more damage, if we approached it in a rational way. There's enough power via solar and wind, there's enough physical space. Yes, that's a guess, but an analytical answer is possible once we have a clear definition (I'll bet someone's done it, actually).
So, oops - we're right back to social. Will we approach it in a rational way? The physical answer tells where we need to go; what is still needed is an answer to the question: how do we go there?
Zaz Tao 30+
The core of the problem is ethics. Enlightened self-interest can be an equivalent substitute. The corporate irresponsibility, the government corruption, the petty, selfish, wasteful behavior of the first world upper, middle and lower classes all stem from an ignorance of the big picture. Look at Wikipedia. Volunteers working together have amassed the greatest encyclopedia in history by far in just ten years. Imperfect you say? It lives and grows every second of the day, if you have a thousand hours to dig deeply into the various cultures, behaviors and operations involved, it is truly astounding.
In the current competitive market model of economics, the rapidly advancing technology is reducing the relative value of human labor. We're not just talking about digging holes and planting crops here. IBM's teams have beat the world's chess champ and beat the televised Jeopardy game. We've seen robots play violin and tell jokes, build cars and serve food.
How can we begin to help the struggling third world when the members of the first world are being rendered obsolete? Without rethinking the competitive market system, none of our societies will be able to hold together. If brilliant first world designers and innovators continue to supply powerful tools to the already power mad capitalists, without looking down at the crumbling society beneath them, we are heading for uglier times than ever.
Zaz Tao 30+
Jack Danger Canty
There's currently enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, the problem is distribution. Enough produce is thrown away in American supermarkets to feed great quantities of hungry people.
But can we construct social, legal, and architectural system to provide comfort to everyone? That's tricker. To spur some conversation, I'll outline a first draft of what I'd say 'comfort' should look like:
- access to clean water
- reliable source of (a minimum amount of) food
- architecture to protect people from the hazards of their environment (e.g. air conditioning in Texas, insulation in Siberia)
- reliable legal rights, especially property rights and the protection of women
Most of the discussion so far is about the first two points. I think most of our work is in the last one. Even were there to be massive food surpluses (as there are every few years) there is no comfort to be had if a population of women fear for their safety or if citizens cannot rely on a court system to enforce equal protection.
Simona Stoicescu
The problem is not that.
The first issue is how we define the life we want to live.
The second issue is how we obtain that abundance from the available resources.
So, if we do apply the same actual definitions and way of doing things in order to build a future, we have no chance, but not because of limited resources.
We have to reinvent a lot...
Philip Crume
Can we attain a "comfortable" standard of living for everyone on the planet? Sure. So long as we respect the Malthusian Limit of every ecosystem we inhabit and maintain population levels below that level. Thomas Malthus said that "every population will reproduce beyond the limits of its food supply." Economic wealth comes from having a margin below that limit. The US is fat and wealthy because we don't have more people than food. Reach that limit and there won't be enough food, the people will starve, and no amount of money will be enough to feed all people.
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Steve Frazee 500+
If humanity continues to act like an unchecked biological creature then we will consume all the available resources and eventually have a massive die back. I believe we are transforming into creatures of consciousness who can mitigate our primal biological urges. If so, the carrying capacity of the planet won't be an issue.
The key I believe is unlimited clean energy. The development of an energy source of that type will change the power/control structure of the planet and enable human beings to live rich live in the duality of the physical world and virtual worlds. Quantum computing and unlimited energy will give us the opportunity to create a vast virtual universe. The physical world then can be cultivated to meet our physical/biological needs while the virtual Universe will be cultivated to meet and cultivate our non-physical needs and desires.
There may be a cascading problem. Who's to say that this world isn't a virtual world from a different perspective.
Sadish Dhakal
It seems like an interesting idea. If a large population of people got together and rejected the current form of money, and then established an economy with a different kind of money, then they could assign value to different things differently in this new economy. But would junk food be more expensive than organic food in that economy? Can we use the new monetary system to make sure that it is, if, say, a majority of the population in that economy wants do do so?
Steve Frazee 500+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nORI8r3JIyw
Comment deleted
Cameron Donahue
But how to pursue it?
---
2nd 'reading' pushed back arbitrarily to March 2012... and you know the ones PRINTING the money (profiting off it coming into existence, let alone lending money they've yet to print/back) are behind the bill's current condition.
E G 10+
Tim Colgan 50+
Humans will pollute some more rivers and destroy some more rain forests and perhaps create a catastrophe which destroys a major portion of the population.
But humans are wired for survival. And eventually will figure out a way to do it (survive that is). Perhaps greed will actually work to it's advantage. Fearing an overpopulation problem the "developed" world may come to realize that making it possible for the "undeveloped" world to develope will become a priority. This due to the simple fact that once societies reach a minimal standard of living, their population stops growing.
Meanwhile reducing consumption and creating sustainable means of producing what is necessary will occur.
David Germanico
To make it sustainable, we need to shift away from the eastern (read: american) standard of living. A houseful of appliances in the suburbs, a gas guzzling SUV in the garage and a fridge full of HFCS laden frozen tv dinners is not what constitutes a "comfortable" way of living.
Javier Yunes 500+
This ain't sustainable at all! Rachel Botsman's talk on collaborative consuption might be the answer to this.
-> The poorest 5% of Americans are Richer than 68% of World's Inhabitants.
This means that poverty is relative? There always will be people with more money and people with less money and the later will be consider poor. Even if they could be cosidered rich somewhere else.
E G 10+
Harald Jezek 50+
Also, did you ever grow plants from seeds ? What happens when you put too much of them into too little space ?
Most of them will germinate right ? But eventually they will overcrowd the place and some will just perish making place for the fittest and strongest plants.
Maybe that's how nature will deal with a human overpopulation ?
Vilgot Huhn 10+
I have no good idea of a solution, I don't think we can stop the system. Overthrowing capitalism and the monetary system will probably lead to even worse or at least equally bad outcomes. I can be very pessimistic about this, but I fear war, genocide and starvation is coming. :(
When it comes to science fiction solutions however, the sea of ideas is rich! Maybe robots, AI and fusion will save us. Maybe we'll live in a virtual-reality. Maybe we'll be super duper eco-friendly! There's always hope... A small, small hope..
Javier Yunes 500+
Michael Raymond Harris
Joseph McMahon
Jordan Miller 20+
I would worry more about helping all people develop a desire to help all other people before we wonder if there is enough for everyone. that's like saying, "I'm not going to work until all the lights are green!"