Wow, that's a lot of people!However, I think it is self correcting - and not in the WW3 or famine way.Simply put, as people become more prosperous they have less children, etc.In the mean time, our goals should be to:- Clean up our world Just like after any big "event," you need to clean up. And with the 20th century now over we need to get on with cleaning up. So much good work has been done in this area but still more needs to be done.- Don't let companies continue to polluteAlmost all the pollution in the world is caused by the companies that serve us. Like dumping dangerous chemicals into the ground or sea to save a few bucks. "We The People" need to stand up for ourselves and say we will not let anything be imported or sold in our countries unless it was made to our standards - like you had to pay the workers a fair wage and you didn't break our environmental laws in making the product. No more hiding behind "we made it somewhere cheap where people make pennies and we can dump poisons into the ground"- Stop building up and start building downSo much energy and space is wasted by building our homes and office towers above ground. They have to be heated and cooled, and there is damage from wind, hurricanes and tornadoes. if we built our homes and offices below ground, while initial construction would cost more the lifetime cost is far less, as would be the environmental impact. And I think it would be cool to have a retracting lawn (aka sunroof) as the ceiling to my living room- Help all peoples become self sufficient in producing foodEvery people needs to be able to feed themselves locally. Teach a man to fish and all that. Aid should always be a temporary emergency measure, and not a way of life.- World peace treatyMost wars are fought over borders and land. So we need to work to resolve all these disputes. To encourage this, we'll need a new "United Nations" of (only) like minded countries to replace NATO, the UN, etc. Those who make it in must have no outstanding disputes left with any other country and also must meet other standards that most European and North American countries already do. Members also all agree to protect each other from non-members, and also levy tarrifs on non-members as membership has it's privileges
Just regarding the idea about people sourcing food locally (teach a man to fish etc).
My friend and i have many discussions over this.
He is a firm believer in "food security", that is being able to produce rough food locally - be that at a village level or national level. In our context he is worried about the fact the UK doesn't produce all the food it needs and imports alot (which caught us out in WW2).
I am of the opinion that increasing the "food catchment" area (i.e. having supply networks that can bring in food from non local places) is better. If the UK has a drought or some sort of natural catastrophe, then food can still be imported from a part of the world where food is still available. By having a more global network food security (and variety!) is improved.
Of course global food networks are more vulnerable to man made disasters like war, revolution or trade disputes. Look at Quatar which is facing issues not because of any climatic or crop failure but because of a political disagreement.
So the two approaches have different strengths and weaknesses:
Local is resilient against a socket strike in another country but vulnerable to a delight or flood.
Global is resilient against droughts, floods, blight but vulnerable to a revolution in Egypt closing the Suez canal or something.
I would argue that the climatic disasters are more likely in the future and less in mankind's control (a lot of the damage having already been done) whilst the political risks are very much in mankind's control (albeit the control is diffused).
Last edited:
