Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The Greatest World Problems      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 51
The Greatest World ProblemsPage 3 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)


Nonsense. The Constitution doesn't directly include 75% or more of what the government does, or how they do it. Arguing that something ought not be done because it "isn't in he Constitution" is specious.


75% is a conservative estimate. It's hardly specious either. The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. When we look the other way when the government ignores the Constitution on things we favor we can hardly complain when it ignores the Constitution on things we oppose.
 chrono1985
Joined: 11/20/2004
Msg: 52
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/12/2011 11:51:23 PM

You guys seem to forget that there are many legal designer drugs on the market made with synthetic compounds that mimic the same results as the real thing in your brain.


Not so much, I lived with a guy not long ago that purchased a lot of those type of things. Tried a bunch of marijuana alternative ones with him, not one of them got it right. A few of them did more harm than good, leaving behind ill effects that had I been operating heavy machinery I'm sure some damage would have resulted. The 'high' effect on almost every one of them lasted maybe 2 or 3 minutes, but the ill effects on those few that had them lasted several hours.

I really can't see anyone smoking marijuana turning to those alternatives just because they are legal. With marijuana you go into it knowing what to expect, and it takes a relatively short amount of time to kick in so you know when to stop if your planning on doing anything that requires a good deal of lucidity.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 1/4/2011
Msg: 53
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/13/2011 9:18:54 AM
Everyone and every brand is different from what I have been told anyway.
What ever~ live and let live~ its when we forget how to do that it becomes a problem.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 5:51:53 AM
Ibli: "The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. "

My point is, that the Constitution IS the basis of our whole system of government. "BASIS" is the operative word here. Most of the things that the people who claim this or that thing the government does aren't in the Constitution fuss about, are DERIVED from things that ARE in the Constitution.
The Constitution was never intended to be a be-all end-all handbook of detailed instructions about how to do EVERYTHING. So any argument that relies simply on the fact that something isn't mentioned there, is a specious argument that actually IGNORES the intent of the founding fathers' document.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 55
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 10:16:29 AM


Ibli: "The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of our whole system of government. "

My point is, that the Constitution IS the basis of our whole system of government. "BASIS" is the operative word here. Most of the things that the people who claim this or that thing the government does aren't in the Constitution fuss about, are DERIVED from things that ARE in the Constitution.
The Constitution was never intended to be a be-all end-all handbook of detailed instructions about how to do EVERYTHING. So any argument that relies simply on the fact that something isn't mentioned there, is a specious argument that actually IGNORES the intent of the founding fathers' document.


The Constitution was intended to put strict limits on the federal government and, to a much lesser extent, the state governments. The Constitution grants the federal government very specific powers and anything it wasn't given the power to do it doesn't have (see the 10th Amendment). It didn't need to give detailed instructions for everything because the Founding Fathers had the wisdom to write the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's Congresses job to make legislation that is necessary and proper to execute the powers given to the federal government. Most federal spending goes to things that aren't in the Constitution and can't be derived from the Constitution (at least not without mangling the English language beyond recognition).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 5:46:35 PM
If that were true, count, why have none of these expenditures been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court? I suggest it is because some HAVE been taken there, and were found to be WITHIN Constitutional bounds. I understand that YOU don't like the interpretation that led them to be found so, but neither your opinion or mine about whether something is or isn't Constitutional matters or has any validity at all. Only the Supreme Court can decide that, and thus far, they've solidly said you are wrong.
 Twilightslove
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 57
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:02:54 PM
The problem with education is NOT the teacher; it is the "No Child Left Behind Act" that has left the children behind. They no longer can teach as they are required to make sure these children pass tests to prove that they have taught them something. My adult children have told me repeatedly that they were taught to memorize what would be on those tests and that they did not learn anything. The only children who may actually be learning anything useful are those who are in the gifted and talented programs.

There has to be a point when we quit putting pressure on the teacher to make sure every child passes and start letting them actually teach again. It is affecting our children and grandchildren. It is affecting the workforce of tomorrow and actually the workforce of today is already affected.

There is only one useful method of teaching and that is to teach. There will always be children who do not grasp one concept or another concept. There will always be children who do not speak the necessary language to learn in a given school and those children should be taught by someone who speaks there main language. Teachers should not be expected to learn those languages to teach those children.

There will always be people who excel in one subject or another. It is actually beneficial that this is so as a workforce is made up of many requirements and needs the necessary people to fulfill those requirements.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 58
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 4/30/2011 7:05:24 PM


If that were true, count, why have none of these expenditures been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court? I suggest it is because some HAVE been taken there, and were found to be WITHIN Constitutional bounds. I understand that YOU don't like the interpretation that led them to be found so, but neither your opinion or mine about whether something is or isn't Constitutional matters or has any validity at all. Only the Supreme Court can decide that, and thus far, they've solidly said you are wrong.


Keep in mind that Supreme Court justices are appointed for their political stances. Both Democrats and Republicans like big government so they appoint justices that will support big government, regardless of what the Constitution says. Prior to 1937 the Supreme Court and lower courts were dismantling New Deal legislation due to its unconstitutionality. That changed when FDR threatened to introduce legislation increasing the number of SC judges, which he would pack with people supportive of his political agenda. Afterwards the SC suddenly accepted his New Deal. The challenges to Social Security started at this time and the sufficiently cowed SC ruled that they were constitutional. The basis was the General Welfare Clause, but their interpretation of the clause is grammatically unacceptable. But who cares about how the English language works when it stands in the way of politics?

It is true that it doesn't matter what I think and that the SC has generally ruled against what I think. But that doesn't mean that they are correct, just that sophistry is alive and well in the court system.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 7:43:22 AM
"It is true that it doesn't matter what I think and that the SC has generally ruled against what I think. But that doesn't mean that they are correct, just that sophistry is alive and well in the court system."
I'll go along with that. From a pure logical standpoint, all we can say right now is that anything the SC has said is Constitutional, IS Constitutional, since that is the definition of what "Constitutional" means. Theres plenty of things I disagree with them about too, most notably, their recent decision that a Corporation is the same as a human individual, when it comes to rights of privacy and political expression. I think THAT is insanity, brought on by the court being stocked with pro-business Republicans, and it will cause a lot of damage to our country going forward. But I have to accept that for now, it IS Constitutional for big corporations to use their wealth, not to expand their businesses, and not to hire more Americans, and not to make themselves better...but to try to secretly try to buy government favors at my expense. I'll just have to wait for death and retirement of this bunch of guys, and another case against it, and enough voters putting different Presidents and Senators into office, to see things changed the way I want. Oh well.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 60
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:28:22 PM

all we can say right now is that anything the SC has said is Constitutional, IS Constitutional, since that is the definition of what "Constitutional" means.


That is highly debatable, at best. The Court never claimed that much authority until Cooper v. Aaron in 1958. In that case, Arkansas claimed it was not bound by an earlier decision that states could not segregate public schools by race. The Court rejected that, and citing Marbury v. Madison as authority, it said this: "The federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution."

It's true the Court said in Marbury that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." But Chief Justice Marshall never said as much as what the 1958 Court was claiming he had--i.e. that that was ONLY the Court's "province and duty," and no one else's. And if it really is, what gives our current president authority to refuse--as he does--to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, on the ground that Section 3 of it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex marriage?

Most legal scholars consider the Court's 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford one of its worst ever (right down there with Roe v. Wade, decided on similar "substantive due process" grounds.) In Dred Scott, the Court held unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise, which had granted slaves freedom in some territories. Historians agree this decision helped pave the way to the Civil War.

Would it really not have been proper to attack Dred Scott in 1858, or to try to nullify it? Or were the Congress and the President helpless to do anything but meekly comply, because the word of Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Southerner who wrote Dred Scott, was law--period?


their recent decision that a Corporation is the same as a human individual, when it comes to rights of privacy and political expression. I think THAT is insanity, brought on by the court being stocked with pro-business Republicans


You of course have the right to think whatever you like about this. And people who know the facts and understand the constitutional issues may decide how much the opinion you stated is worth. Last year, in Citizens United, the Court reiterated that it had

"recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech . . . [this] does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation. [We have] rejected the argument that political speech of corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not "natural persons...."

So the Court made very clear in Citizens United that it wasn't announcing some radical new principle. That had been the law since at least it decided Buckley v. Valeo in 1976.
It was in 1990, in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, that the Court announced the radical new principle--that political speech may be banned based on the speaker's corporate identity. In Citizens United, the Court overruled Austin and returned to the principle it had declared more than 30 years earlier:

"Less than two years after Buckley, Bellotti reaffirmed the First Amendment principle that the Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity. Bellotti could not have been clearer . . . 'We thus find no support in the First . . . Amendment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation . . . .'"

The Court went on:

"Austin should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 61
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 6:08:13 PM


"Austin should be and now is overruled. We return to the principle established in Buckley and Bellotti that the Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity. No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."


While I agree with the Court's decision I think the above line of argumentation is actually kind of dumb. Corporations don't have freedom of speech because they don't have mouths. They don't have hands to speak in sign-language. They don't have fingers with which they can type. It's like saying that rocks have freedom of speech.

What they really should be saying is that people have freedom of speech, even and especially political speech, regardless of whether they are somehow connected to a corporation or not. Think of it this way, if the government has the power to censor "corporate" speech, then they have the power to censor the press because all, or effectively all, press outlets are corporations. John Stewart could be censored because he's paid by a corporation and his TV show is financially dependent upon a corporation. All of Michael Moore's movies could be censored because they are funded and otherwise supported by corporations. PoF forums could be censored because PoF is a corporation. Most citizens could have their speech censored because most people work for corporations (the word "most" is not intended to be factually accurate; I have no idea what percentage of the population works for corporations, but you get my point).
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 62
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/1/2011 9:23:19 PM
^^^^No, I agree with all that. One thing that got the Court's attention was the admission of the side opposing Citizens United, in oral arguments, that if the video about Hillary Clinton could be banned because C.U. was a corporation, a *book* could also be banned for the same reason, if even a small part of it took a position on an upcoming election. Mentioning book-burning tends to make everyone concerned with freedom prick up their ears.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/2/2011 4:09:28 AM
My understanding of the change in law, is NOT that corporations can have a voice, whereas before they could not. It wasn't FREEDOM OF SPEECH that was being made legal, it was SECRECY OF MONEY CONTRIBUTED that was changed. Since it is a fact that money DOES influence elections, this means that we no longer have the right as citizens, to know who is funding our candidates push for high office.
Heads of corporations have always had the right to speak their minds as they wished, both as individuals, and as titular leaders/representatives of their companies. This decision by the SC means that they can "donate" as much money to a candidate as they like, and keep it secret. That sounds like a sign CALLING for bribes.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 64
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/2/2011 10:22:02 AM
No, I agree with all that. One thing that got the Court's attention was the admission of the side opposing Citizens United, in oral arguments, that if the video about Hillary Clinton could be banned because C.U. was a corporation, a *book* could also be banned for the same reason, if even a small part of it took a position on an upcoming election.

Well, ok. Corporations aren't people (at least a corporation shouldn't be). The individuals who own a corporation are not being limited in any way and a corporation is much more than just a group of individuals who get together and do so something. Forming a corporation limits the personal liability of the owners, but limiting the rights of a corporation only limits the rights of a corporation, not the rights of the individuals who own it. They could easily retain those rights to act as a group by not incorporating.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 65
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/2/2011 4:21:58 PM
Even though I agree with some of your observations and griping, I would never want to publish this rant elsewhere, because it's got too many errors in it as well.
One big screaming one, is the idea that Afghanistan was an "innocent nation invaded by Bush's armies." I opposed Iraq II as a put up job, and a huge mistake, but Afghanistan directly shielded and supported Bin Laden, and lied to try to help him further after 9/11.

Anyway, my own guess as to why American schools have messed up parts of their curriculum, is a cross between high ideals without matching commitment, and too many politicians running things, who think like MBA's.
When you decide that the way to educate is to quantize everything, assign a dollar value to it, and then set the budget accordingly, you are bound to get the same kind of bad decisions there, as are made by businessmen every day. The difference is, that since the business world is DESIGNED (as in artificially distorted) to have profits result from such quantization and dollar valuations, it appears to work...even as customer satisfaction, and services decline.
In business, you can ADJUST CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS to match what you are willing to deliver for the chosen price point. In education, the measuring system is INDEPENDENT of the people running things: it is REALITY. Thus, when the MBA concepts are applied, the result is initially the same as in business: it is rapidly recognized that it isn't possible to deliver the requested product (a well educated child) at the designated price point. But whereas the business people can assign managers to "train" the customers to lower their expectations, the REAL WORLD isn't addressable or malleable. That is, you can't show commercials and do friendly presentations to the REAL WORLD to convince it to accept the lousy "product" (your undereducated child) as being just as good as what was called for.
But here in the U.S., politicians running for the offices that decide how much to tax and spend on education, aren't elected primarily on how well kids turn out ten years later, they are elected based on how LOW they make the tax bill NOW, while PRETENDING that education will improve as less is spent on it...usually by demanding that teachers have what they teach limited to a small set of things NOT including grammar. Tests are established to "prove" it's all working (that's the same stupid, misleading sort of feedback that ALL MBA's are taught to believe in), but since the tests are DESIGNED to match the limited curriculum, they only prove that the system taught 100% of the TEN PERCENT OF NEEDED KNOWLEDGE that they decided was economically feasible to provide.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 66
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/6/2011 10:01:12 PM
margo

I still think its death and all of its related things.

Oh, and lies!

Still, there is one vital resource in which we may develop a shortage in the next few decades: us.
http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/sperlazzo/bs_opm1010903.html

I know you will read it.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 1/4/2011
Msg: 67
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/7/2011 1:54:44 AM
Over population- agreed. The effects on the economy were never mentioned in that.
Kind of biblical in terms of interpretation of future prophecies yet to be revealed in my opinion. Then again Im the illogical spiritual thing that makes sense out of whats happening to the world through scripture. We all have our realities now dont we?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 68
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 5/15/2011 3:24:16 PM
what is the obvius answere for us to ALL do???

live simple lives;
you don't know how simple I am suggesting

very little materialism. most of us, [not all] pay lip service only, to materialism not making us any happier.
by 'not all', I mean many DO think more stuff means happy.

no cars, airplanes, etc.
the only other way that I can see it working is I can have all those things, but not the growing third world.

If we all lived like the average north american we have 8 years of oil left. whatever the exact amount of time, its limited.

I bet not too many people would THINK that they would be happy in a 400 sq ft house. plus maybe a loft. or smaller even!
some choose to live in under 100 sq ft. and they are not any unhappier.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/3/2011 7:58:34 AM
I like Mr Iceman, He knows his Capitalism. I myself am a hardcore capitalist, and a Libertarian. The biggest issue I think facing Western Civilization today is not greed, or environmental collapse, but it is the trust, and power we have given our Governments in the name of fear. I do not agree with Iceman that Man is the biggest problem. I believe that out of the 6 billion people on the planet, that if you round up the number, about 6 billion are good. I have never in my life have met a single person that I thought was bad, or evil. I disagree with a lot of people, but I know that in their heart, they are truly trying to do what is best.

With the reduction of the government power Capitalism will flourish. It will actually make for a free market of free ideas. People will individually be able to support what causes they want to support, which business they want to support, and we the people will decide which businesses will stay afloat. Not elect a government, where corporate bailouts, and tax cuts will keep unethical businesses afloat because they serve the interest of government.

I believe that If you want to cure cancer, that you should work on curing cancer, Not complain to the government that more money should be funneled to cancer research. You should be free to donate what you wish, not mandated through taxation how much you have to put forward. There is no compassion or love in that. You are just free to do as they tell you. Socialism, is the first step towards Fascism.

The biggest problem facing the East is starvation, and a deplorable quality of life particularly in Third World nations in Africa, though it is all over the world, Africa is particularly bad per capita. To top things off with the current state of environmental hysteria, These nations are having a hard time being able to develop on their own, even though alot of them have the resources to do so. They are being strong armed by the IPCC to not touch their oil and coal reserves, that could lead to a better quality of life and save MILLIONS, all because the evil de jour is carbon emissions. I was not even alive at the time but I know of a time over 30 years ago where western civilization was frantic over the same thing, we had oil shortages, extreme weather, drought, famine, but these carbon emissions at the time were causing global cooling. All the top "experts" at the time agreed and anyone who apposed them were uneducated frogs serving the interest of capitalistic swine.

Fact is yes, the Climate is Changing, and all scientists do seem to agree on that. Where the scientists do not agree is 1) the cause, and 2) The effects it will have on the planet. Ecologist, and greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore even goes as far as saying the melting of the polar ice caps could provide a great benefit to the world, creating more arable land for growing crops and feeding the growing population of the planet. I'm not saying that Climate change should be dismissed. The research is very important. However based on the information we have at the time, it seems irresponsible to me to very literally tell people that they have to starve and die, While we in the west can enjoy the benefits of our carbon emitting fuels, because we are trying to reduce them.

Thats my rant.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 70
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/4/2011 8:35:03 AM
Actually 92% of Americans are socialists. They just don't readily admit it.
http://www.politicususa.com/en/american-socialists

Over population and overcomsumption via unbridled greed are setting us up for a world of hurt and a major, messy population crash. It does not have to be that way, but the propaganda machinery of the oily interests of the world is preventing most humans from thinking outside of their collective box. Oil wars, water wars, food wars, and mineral wars will dwarf past armed conflicts. The west is still treating the rest of the world as their colony, turning people food into fuel for our vehicles, pillaging their forests and mineral deposits, trashing their waters, devouring their soils, and generally creating destabilization and inevitable violence. I remember the monkey park at the little zoo of my youth where there were so many monkeys in such a confined space that they were constantly battling over food and slinging feces at each other. The world has turned into that monkey park, and we are the monkeys now.
 happybunny8
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 71
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/4/2011 8:41:32 AM
I find it difficult to answer this question in an objective way.

It's akin to a question I was asked yesterday about charities and volunteer work and whether I found it fair for organizations to declare what charities employees should give to.

My response was that all causes are of equal importance, but what is close to the heart of an individual will always win out. I think our early environment also plays a role.
 jay.m83
Joined: 5/18/2011
Msg: 72
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/4/2011 4:22:52 PM
I know most Americans are socialist, I am not an American, nor am I in anyway any kind of socialist. I do not believe the government should have a monopoly on services the public needs. I support private charity, and I do not condone government forced redistribution of wealth. Socialism and redistribution of wealth can exist in a Capitalistic government, as long as the government has very little power, then the people who want to be socialist can be socialist in amongst themselves. Not on a grand scale mind you, but say, you and a bunch of your close friends and neighbors want to pool your money and resources together in order to help each other through the good and the bad. And I think that mentality is awesome. And you are a fantastic person if you feel that much love that would want to do that for the people around you. It is when it is taken to a greater scale that things become a problem. People are going to get screwed, and not the big wealthy oil companies. Lower middle class gets hit the hardest. You know, the people who work damn hard so they can have a comfortable living environment without fancy bells and whistles. Minimum wage sees no benefit, costs will increase for most products and services based on the poorest who can afford them. And the rich have to cut costs and jobs in order to keep their bottom line. And I am sick and tired of people complaining about corporations worrying about their bottom line. They are trying to run a business. And from a business point of view, it does not matter if you are a small business, or a giant corporation, you are worried about how much money you make at the end of day. Yes, there are some that have poor ethics and practices. I suggest YOU STOP GIVING THEM YOUR MONEY. Its a lot easier than you think. Not perfect, but then it won't be until government has less control in our daily lives.

Now over population and over consumption are not as big of deals as people make them out to be. We already have the technology to overcome it. It is difficult to say what exactly is driving climate change, but considering that humans even with all our cars, factories and pollution are not even in the TOP 5 of carbon emitters on the planet, and that this same hysteria happened over 30 years ago and it turned out to be a wash then, I think we need to wait until we have 100% support from the scientific community before alarms should be raised. We could build safer, more efficient nuclear power plants. Ones that can be powered by the very waste that they produce(Yes we have that technology.) And they are far safer than plants currently running, and much much safer than the plant that melted down in Japan. We have genetically modified crops that will allow us to feed everyone, even if the population gets greater. Problem is people think this technology is bad for some reason. That somehow these crops are inferior to organic crops, even though organic crops are more likely to give you E-coli or salmonella. Organic pesticides are more dangerous than synthetic (Yes most organic farmers use pesticide too.) And not to mention if we used only organic farming techniques we would only be able to feed 2/3 of the worlds population.

People seem to romanticize pre-industrial society as the good ol days. Wake up call. It ****ing sucked. People died from gum disease. We need technology to save us from nature. Nature is a cold-hearted beast. Nature wants us dead. And it would even if we tried to live "in harmony" with it. Ask any of the 25 species that go extinct per day how living with nature treated them.

I want to change my answer. The Biggest problem facing the entire world right now, is the fight against technology Because at some point in the future, we are going to need to get off this rock. We are far better creatures than this, and if the entire world could just get over themselves and squabbles that really don't matter, then we could be exploring space together.

The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, "Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, "Hey, don't worry; don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we … kill those people. "Shut him up! I've got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real." It's just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn't matter, because it's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here's what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace. - Bill Hicks RIP
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 73
view profile
History
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/5/2011 10:03:27 AM
The biggest problem the planet faces is the collected impact on natural systems by humans. The biggest problem humans face is an inability or unwillingness to utilize our unique talents to assure the planet sustains us as well as it can. Instead we adopt an attitude very well expressed above: view nature as the enemy, use it up until some yet to be developed technology lets us leave the ruins behind and move to some other planet to exploit.

Technology won't address overpopulation, other than making birth control technology readily available to all. We can't just keep inventing ways to increase food production. We're approaching our limits on those with far greater food demands looming. We already have 100% agreement among national science organizations with any connection to the climate that human actions significantly impact the climate, if not full agreement of everyone who call themselves scientists, which we'll never have.
We're smart enough to do things no other species could, but not smart enough to take responsibility for the consequences and minimize their negative impacts.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 1/4/2011
Msg: 74
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/5/2011 11:04:17 AM
What ever happened to Mother Nature providing a good old fashioned black plague?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 75
The Greatest World Problems
Posted: 6/5/2011 11:22:34 AM

What ever happened to Mother Nature providing a good old fashioned black plague?

People in white coats are doing their best from keeping it from happening.

But do not worry as all they are doing is putting off the inevitable.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > The Greatest World Problems