Can Knowledge Save Us.

@William,

After a life time of study of but why, I now know all the answers are within man himself. for me to heal the world, I must heal myself, every thing starts with self and finishes with self, what I see out there is only a reflection of my own consciousness. So to change the world I only have to change the reflection.

1 Reply

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

After a life time of study of but why, I now know all the answers are within man himself. for me to heal the world, I must heal myself, every thing starts with self and finishes with self, what I see out there is only a reflection of my own consciousness. So to change the world I only have to change the reflection.

Are you sure about self? The paradigm of discover, learn, reason and apply has always been the method and we seem to be back sliding big time. I do agree we do have the knowledge, but it seems we just apply it to those parameters that effort to support a failing status quo. Obviously we are missing the boat somewhere. Where do you think that might be? As you speak of "man" and the answers coming from within, if it is not what society deems to support it's status quo, what good is it? It seems it would rather destroy itself rather than seek another way.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

Six months ago I ventured into my first Philosophy forum with the idea that intelligence could actually formulate the foundational steps needed to initiate forward momentum toward world harmony. My question is this. Can philosophy, science, intellect or knowledge save the world? Can intellect reach a consensus that power will listen to?
A house divided cannot stand and it is quite obvious from history, that wis in fact a truth. Are we smart enough to unite this world? If we are not, then of what uss is knowledge? Of what use is philosophy? Are we just matching wits here or can we put what we know to good use.

I don't quite understand your initial question. In terms of humanity as a species, our numbers aren't dwindling, and in fact, they're growing (I'm sure you're aware some scientists believe we have actually almost filled the earth's capacity). And in terms of communication, spreading of ideas, knowledge... that is also improving (internet...this forum), 'uniting' us in a sense. We have been putting what we know to good use, so what are you getting at?

Please answer a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from:
1.) What are the specific issues that have you upset, or at the least, pondering over why humanity's house won't stand?
2.) What makes you think complete harmony is good for our species?
2a.) Do you really think perfect harmony is possible; would it contradict
the very nature of humans?
3.) From what other angle are you seeking to unite humanity that would satisfy you?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Quote:

Can philosophy, science, intellect or knowledge save the world?

Depends on how you use the knowledge. For self-defence/deterrence or for war?

(e.g Manhattan Project)

0 Replies

@William,

William wrote:

Six months ago I ventured into my first Philosophy forum with the idea that intelligence could actually formulate the foundational steps needed to initiate forward momentum toward world harmony. My question is this. Can philosophy, science, intellect or knowledge save the world? Can intellect reach a consensus that power will listen to?

A house divided cannot stand and it is quite obvious from history, that axiom is in fact a truth. Are we smart enough to unite this world? If we are not, then of what use is knowledge? Of what use is philosophy?

I'm not so sure if intelligence is going to save us but the Internet opens up new doors of communication and collaboration never known before in history. The thing is, the Internet has allowed us to communicate and share thoughts and ideas to our fellow man on a global scale. This concept is changing things.

So, I'd have to say that there is already forward momentum and as more and more people learn to tap into the resources of the Internet and utilize the ability to communicate freely, it will continue to increase the momentum.

As far as philosophy, I think that as humankind gets closer and closer to recognizing that in order to change the to world man must change his hearts and his thoughts and deal with the cause rather than the effects, the pieces of the puzzle that has puzzled man for centuries will fall into place.

Collectively, we've created all this and collectively we're awakening and the ability to communicate with the world is going increase the speed at which we awaken to the power to change it within us.

"Are we smart enough to unite this world?" This is part of the divide. Uniting this world starts at home and starts within our own communities and families but further than that it starts within the consciousness of mankind. If the desire is to unite others we must start out by uniting ourselves and our thinking. Or one can just pray for world unity... We've seen where that has gotten us.

Another problem in uniting the world is that many of us have put this burden onto a mythological God and have come to the conclusion that man is physical and that man is going to die and that man is not God. That's separation at it's best. In separation how are we to unite? If we are separate from God then how can we not be separate from ourselves? How then can we create world unity when we are separate from the world we've created?

How then does man unite the world when man is blind to the separation from within himself?

Separation will not create unity.

When we understand that it starts within our own thoughts and hearts and the separation in the world will be to the extent that we separate ourselves from creation.

These are just my thoughts on it.

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

Are you sure about self? The paradigm of discover, learn, reason and apply has always been the method and we seem to be back sliding big time. I do agree we do have the knowledge, but it seems we just apply it to those parameters that effort to support a failing status quo. Obviously we are missing the boat somewhere. Where do you think that might be? As you speak of "man" and the answers coming from within, if it is not what society deems to support it's status quo, what good is it? It seems it would rather destroy itself rather than seek another way.

William

Yes I am sure about self for I AM all there is, I now practice what I have awakened to, as I heal the issues I see out there from within myself, they appear to change, but in actual fact I am the one that has changed. it's like healing both sides of the coin at the same time. This makes the world a better place to live in.

1 Reply

@Justin,

Justin's statement:

"When we understand that it starts within our own thoughts and hearts and the separation in the world will be to the extent that we separate ourselves from creation".

Beautifully written. If I might add, if you don't mind, pertaining to my signature, I feel it is crucial we do not consider our being finite as so many of "intellect" do. As I have always proclaimed, "I am not smart enough to be an Atheist" and "I am too ignorant to know all that is God", I always wonder what it is about knowledge that disconnects us from that innate oneness of which I can only assume we are all a part. Personally, I have gone far past such an isolationist stance, but getting through to others this immutable fact is another story. It is as though there is too much noise in the minds of most to hear the logic. Justin, being that I feel we are, for the most part, "of like mind", have you considered what must be done to bring down the barriers that separate us. Can you point to a core problem? If not, I would like to offer mine.

Again, great response
Thanks,
William

1 Reply

@Richardgrant,

If knowledge, understanding, science and philosophy cannot save us, then humanity is lost. But it is not certain, it seems to me, that a unified political body is needed, or that it's policies will achieve much of anything. Governments are nodes of power and coercion, and are not known for listening to philosophers or scientists.

Rather than rely on world government, should we not look to increasing the educational level of all, and fostering a realisation that all humans share a planet?
Justin rightly points to the spaceless, nationless Internet as a significant development in human civilisation. The free and open communication of ideas, its tremendous potential to increase education, and its transcendence of national boundaries by fostering understanding and friendships between individuals at extreme distances may provide a much stronger force for good than any political entity.

Consider for a moment the availability of knowledge; anyone with an internet connexion has available, at their fingertips, both current news, scientific information, and an immense library of cultural and philosophic thought. It is entirely possible that a keen young mind in the isolation of a village in Nepal may make a great scientific discovery that will change the world. Or perhaps spurred by a discussion here, break new philosophic ground.

At the very least, the possibility of human interaction will reduce both ignorance and intolerance. It is difficult to hate people with whom one has authentic relationships, or to conjure dark thoughts because of isolation from the world.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

Please answer a few questions so I can understand where you're coming from:

1.) What are the specific issues that have you upset, or at the least, pondering over why humanity's house won't stand?
2.) What makes you think complete harmony is good for our species?
2a.) Do you really think perfect harmony is possible; would it contradict
the very nature of humans?
3.) From what other angle are you seeking to unite humanity that would satisfy you?

1. Waste, greed, fear, trillion dollar drug industry, abortions, nuclear destruction, AIDS, warehoused children, ADD and ADHD, discrimination, racism, selfishness, murder, rape, pornography, unbridled hedonism, rampant sexual promiscuity, STD's, single parent families, etc., etc., etc..

2. If you would please note anything in the universe, other than ourselves that is not "harmonic"?

2a. Absolutely. Nature of Humans? We haven't a clue, in my opinion, as to what exactly that is. If we are to assume our future to but more of what our past has defined as "human nature", we're screwed.

3. Consider life an entitlement for all who live here. The right to be free seem to depend largle on how much money you have in your pocket. Who by the way said the Earth is for sale? Who has that right to put a price on life?

I hope this answered you question. Thanks for asking.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

have you considered what must be done to bring down the barriers that separate us. Can you point to a core problem?

Thanks William for the compliments.

Please understand that we work in a world of effects. The separation in the world is an effect. We can patch it up and we can focus on fixing it but if we do, we're only fixing the effect which will not produce the desired results. It will actually produce the opposite of the desired results.

Take an illness for example, like that of cancer. We are diagnosed, we go through treatment and we see doctors that ultimately treat cancer, which is an effect of something much greater. We can patch it up, burn it out and sometimes even prolong the greater effects of cancer but with every treatment of that one effect are side effects. Chemotherapy in the treatment of cancer produce long term effects and if you take a look at the list of side effects treatment causes you'll quickly begin to understand. This of course is meant only to be an example.

Likewise, you, me and the world are concerned more with the effects than we are with understanding the cause. Separation is merely an effect and although we can treat this effect in many ways, none will last because we've skipped right over any of the possible causes.

Treatments for the effect of world separation are most commonly found in Religion. The problem is that now we have more and more religions all the time and maybe our intent is to unite but the result is separation. Side effects of it cause war and many other things... too long to list.

The barriers are the barriers we place within our own selves and our own conscious thought patterns. Our belief systems and faith based systems create barriers which separate. Although they try to create unity, without realizing it they create the total opposite. The more time and attention we give to the effect, the more side effects we are going to have which create greater separation.

If man is blind to the unity of man and God or man and creation, then how is it that man can fix the problems of the world? If man is separate from himself... meaning man is physical-ego based not spiritual, then how are we not going to create more of what we're trying to ultimately repair?

How are we to create peace and unity in another man when we don't have an understanding of it within our own hearts? Man can only control his or her perception of what's out there. Our perception and beliefs and everything we accept as truth will radiate from us outward and, like Richard describes, create a reflection to be that in which we've manifested with out thoughts and perceptions.

... This can get very deep indeed. However, ultimately it's man who must awaken his eyes to see the light of creation within himself to see that same light of reflection in others. Man believes there is something else controlling man, something greater, something far away and something that can never be known... but in reality, man is more control of his creation than he is willing to awaken to.

Truth could smack us square in the forehead and because we're so indulged in a world of effects, we'd never know it. Thus my point. To unite the world I think we must let it go and start at home. To change the world we must change ourselves.

Thoughts are things. Without thought there is no manifestation.

0 Replies

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

If knowledge,1) understanding, science and philosophy cannot save us, then humanity is lost. But it is not certain, it seems to me, that a unified political body is needed, or that it's policies will achieve much of anything.2) Governments are nodes of power and coercion, and are not known for listening to philosophers or scientists.

Rather than rely on world government, 3) should we not look to increasing the educational level of all, and fostering a realisation that all humans share a planet?
Justin rightly points to the spaceless, nationless Internet as a significant development in human civilisation. 4) The free and open communication of ideas, its tremendous potential to increase education, and its transcendence of national boundaries by fostering understanding and friendships between individuals at extreme distances may provide a much stronger force for good than any political entity.

Consider for a moment the availability of knowledge; anyone with an internet connexion has available, at their fingertips, both current news, scientific information, and an immense library of cultural and philosophic thought.5) It is entirely possible that a keen young mind in the isolation of a village in Nepal may make a great scientific discovery that will change the world. Or perhaps spurred by a discussion here, break new philosophic ground.

At the very least, the possibility of human interaction will reduce both ignorance and intolerance. 6) It is difficult to hate people with whom one has authentic relationships, or to conjure dark thoughts because of isolation from the world.

Jg, if I mght comment on what you have said. I agree with you.

1. Understanding. That is such a key word to me. But the ego is so formidable in that it keeps us from hearing others and their perceptions especially if they differ from our own. We must become, IMO, mentally defenseless, so to speak, in order to hear. Of course that makes us vulnerable. That's a problem. A big problem. We call it human nature. I call it fear.

2. Government and power. In our present reality, science is at the beckon call of of power, whether it be of political or private. Power listen's only to the extent in which it will reinforce and enhance such power, that is all. IMO, philosophy has little to do with how the world operates today. I may be wrong. I have yet to draw a correlation.

3. Education. You hit the nail on the head my friend. Currently, education is programmed and designed to salvage those who can offer solutions to continue the status quo. Those who have nothing to offer as determined by the "mores" of society, are left by the wayside. I am of the faith that we are eternal creatures and within the mind of the child are the answers we seek. We must offer a level playing field in which those minds can think freely and clearly absent of external inertia forcing it to go into directions alien to it. It will learn what is meant, not what it is forced to.

4. Global Communication via the internet. Justin and you are so very correct. We are doing that now. It will be instrumental in reaching that truth in which all will be able to hear.

5. The Death of Martyrs. The truth has always been a threat in the past to the powers that be and we can only hope those thoughts and ideas we share will have a voice in the world. Many who have access to the internet will do all in their power to sabotage the truth. These pawns of power I call them. I would like to believe it is more of a survival tactic than one of malicious intent, but history is more than rift of those consequences. Less hope this young man from Tibet, as you illustrated, or from anywhere on the planet, has the courage to get his message out. Perhaps he is present as we speak.

6. What a beautiful statement.

Thanks for your response and your contribution,

William

2 Replies

@William,

Justin, sorry I got your name wrong. I am getting soooo old. Ha. Just the carcas, not the container within.

William

1 Reply

@William,

No worries, I've gone and edited that for you since you brought it up.

0 Replies

@William,

A note on education (3).

I think it especially important to make a distinction between two kinds of education or perhaps, looking at the subject from another way, two different functions education fulfills.
First, education serves society in presenting the common stock of knowledge and (in some instances) values that permit an individual to function within a community. This "always-already" or social construction of reality, the "status quo" if you will, is basic to any existence.
But education also teaches its own self-surpassing and self-examination- - -or rather it teaches the method to do so, call it critical thinking, logic, or intellectual discipline.

The two kinds of education may be illustrated by the example of history. In the first, one is taught dates and historically accepted interpretations of events, often true enough slanted towards a certain local bias. In the second kind, one is taught the historical method; this allows a neutral examination of events, a critical assessment of interpretations, and provides procedures for independent research.

My position is that one may justly subject the first kind of education to criticism or to point out its origin in the needs of society and its consequent limitations, but not at the cost of including the second kind.
Regards,
John

1 Reply

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

The two kinds of education may be illustrated by the example of history. In the first, one is taught dates and historically accepted interpretations of events, often true enough slanted towards a certain local bias. In the second kind, one is taught the historical method; this allows a neutral examination of events, a critical assessment of interpretations, and provides procedures for independent research.

My position is that one may justly subject the first kind of education to criticism or to point out its origin in the needs of society and its consequent limitations, but not at the cost of including the second kind.
Regards,
John

It has been so long since I was in school and I have no clue of what is being taught today. I can only assume from the behavior and language from it's students, but still much, for me at any rate, is not known.
For instance in the late 60's and early 70's, television stopped being an entertainment entity, and became a programming tool, IMO. Is education today "teaching" or "programming"? It is so very easy to form and manipulate the mind of the naive especially when "..the more you learn, the more you earn" is that societal threat hanging over it all. I say this simply because of my assessment of the "status quo" condition I mentioned in Zetherin's question and see little evidence that society is even interested in those assessements as they contribute it all to "that's life". John, I totally agree with your statement but considering revisionism and political correctness designed to insure no "voting adult" is discriminated upon, no matter what, is generating an immorality construct that will have us all wearing "body rubbers" before much longer. When I was younger (don't you just hate to here that, Ha) school was a "surrogate family structure" and respect was the order of the day. Where did that go? I agree with the rudimentary needs in education provides, but is that being overshadowed by it's politically correct programming?

William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

1. Waste, greed, fear, trillion dollar drug industry, abortions, nuclear destruction, AIDS, warehoused children, ADD and ADHD, discrimination, racism, selfishness, murder, rape, pornography, unbridled hedonism, rampant sexual promiscuity, STD's, single parent families, etc., etc., etc..

2. If you would please note anything in the universe, other than ourselves that is not "harmonic"?

2a. Absolutely. Nature of Humans? We haven't a clue, in my opinion, as to what exactly that is. If we are to assume our future to but more of what our past has defined as "human nature", we're screwed.

3. Consider life an entitlement for all who live here. The right to be free seem to depend largle on how much money you have in your pocket. Who by the way said the Earth is for sale? Who has that right to put a price on life?

I hope this answered you question. Thanks for asking.

William

1.) Many of the things you mention here you must realize are an application of your moral code. Additionally, some of the issues you point out, I may not address the manner you do. Sexual promiscuity, for example, isn't the actual problem, but a symptom of a problem far greater - I believe the actual problem has more to do with the sheltering of natural human actions, and the push of moral codes at ages where rebellion is a natural psycho-tendency (I'll touch more in detail if you'd like). These social constructs and our moral compass are what guide us, however, I don't feel we should necessarily push our notions on others. We must take a step back and analyze why each of these things are upsetting, and then really consider whether we are addressing the problems practically. Each of us has a 'perfect' world we'd each like to live in, and that may not necessarily agree with others.

2.) I think this may need to be addressed more in depth, as "harmonic" could very well suffer from semantics. I was speaking of the utopian peace you seem to seek. We live, we kill eachother, we die - many species do this, though since we have a seemingly different consciousness, we consider humanity special. I could argue we do live harmoniously, just as every thing does - again, it is only by our application of "good" and "evil" that we begin to consider otherwise. In other words, even if we don't live peacefully, it doesn't mean we aren't being harmonious with the world (when I noted the word "harmony" in my initial question, I was addressing the idea of peace). Let me make this clear - even if tomorrow we blew up the entire planet with a nuclear weapon, we would have still lived harmoniously in my book... due to the law of entropy, we cannot create or destroy matter. Sure, we would have ended our consciousness, but realistically it is minuscule in the scheme of things (this may be where hubris comes into play). We wouldn't be able to live in total chaos, we live harmoniously without will.

3.) I couldn't agree more that every human should be free. I believe in true equality, and I also don't believe a human life should have a price tag. I'm a humanitarian, but I also consider that death may be vital to not only our further existence, but our atmospheres. By 2042 it is estimated that we will have 9 billion people on earth. If we do not begin exploring other living arrangements, we and our planet may be in trouble.

I have my own notion of uniting, just as we all do. Justin and I are in a group called "Peace and Enlightenment" where we were going to touch on a lot of this more in depth. Even with this said, I do consider that our ideas of uniting may never be in unison with every other human, or even each other. The goal in my opinion, however, is to plant seeds and provide others knowledge of humanity's current position. We can't make anyone interested, we can only provide the knowledge necessary for enlightenment. If we can conjure desire, we've won half the battle. If humanity can agree on a universal notion and we act upon such to 'better' our species (whatever that may mean), then bravo.

There really is improvement, though, and I really want to stress this point. Before the internet, there would be no philosophy forum. We are progressing, and many are beginning to take interest in a variety of different paths of intellectual thought . There is a growing desire to ponder the unknown. I recommend a good example of this: TED: Ideas worth spreading

1 Reply

@William,

Hi William, It took me many years of soul searching to find my answers to the problems in the world out there, eventually I found all the answers were within my own self. while ever I sought the answers out there I committed the primary sin of separation from my true beingness, and my ego dominated my life, where I dealt with the effect world. I now find that when I work with cause from within myself all my answers are solved, knowing that I created all I perceived, therefore I could un-create it by changing my thinking. doing it this way, the outer appears to have changed but in actual fact I am the one thats changed.

1 Reply

@Richardgrant,

Richardgrant wrote:

Hi William, It took me many years of soul searching to find my answers to the problems in the world out there, eventually I found all the answers were within my own self. while ever I sought the answers out there I committed the primary sin of separation from my true beingness, and my ego dominated my life, where I dealt with the effect world. I now find that when I work with cause from within myself all my answers are solved, knowing that I created all I perceived, therefore I could un-create it by changing my thinking. doing it this way, the outer appears to have changed but in actual fact I am the one thats changed.

Richard,
How nice it would be for each and every one of us to realize our individuality as a unique cog in the overall puzzle that is mankind. Of course we have no clue to what the picture looks like on the box, that is what life is about. We will make that moasic. Just you realizing you are a piece to that puzzle, you will help others realize their own special purpose that will give them the peace you have found as those pieces come together. Great post, thanks for you offering it to us.

William

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

1.) Many of the things you mention here you must realize are an application of your moral code. Additionally, some of the issues you point out, I may not address the manner you do. Sexual promiscuity, for example, isn't the actual problem, but a symptom of a problem far greater - I believe the actual problem has more to do with the sheltering of natural human actions, and the push of moral codes at ages where rebellion is a natural psycho-tendency (I'll touch more in detail if you'd like). These social constructs and our moral compass are what guide us, however, I don't feel we should necessarily push our notions on others. We must take a step back and analyze why each of these things are upsetting, and then really consider whether we are addressing the problems practically. Each of us has a 'perfect' world we'd each like to live in, and that may not necessarily agree with others.

I agree with all you say. Please never, ever, take my opinions personally. I paint with a very broad brush from a "universal view point". When I use "you", I do not mean you individually, I mean "common thought by most" realizing there are always considered exceptions from the norm. I do not have a "grey area". It has taken me 30 years to get to "black and white" and that may lead some to believe as you have said above, "my moral code". Zetherin, morality went our the door when we began killing our unborn. In all due respect, please allow me to disagree with what you believe is the "far greater" problem. You state the standard PC rational that has come about since we legalize this deplorable act. Prior to "Women's Liberation", there was no rebellion to speak of. Yes there are and were "natural human actions" but not to the degree they are today. Have you ever heard the statement, "Locks were made to keep your friends honest"? Prior to women's liberation, the child was that lock. It was the consequence for those who were considering having sexual intercourse that made couples think twice before engaging in the act. Now As a teenage we had our "natural human desires" and we found a way to thoroughly enjoy each others company without engaging in that act that could bring a child into the world. We had a blast too. But the most effective roadblock was the will of the girl. She made the final decision. She did not want to be a single mother and in that there was what could be conceived a "morality", let alone common sense. That lock has been removed. I was in my early twenties when Roe v. Wade occurred and as most had no idea the decision was even being considered until it had been past, Now for just a statement that we can discuss in another thread, for I do not want to get involved with it here. What I am about to say you will not find corroboration , for it comes from my reasoning for I was there and I was paying attention. Abortion was never about "woman's liberation"; it has always been about finding cures for the debilitating diseases of the elderly, namely Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. Women's liberation was just the front. There were dollar signs all over finding cures for these illnesses and more test material was needed. The most diabolical scam that has ever occurred in the history of man was successful. One day I will connect the dots for you, but not now. That will provide a rather interesting argument for another thread.

Zetherin wrote:

2.) I think this may need to be addressed more in depth, as "harmonic" could very well suffer from semantics. I was speaking of the utopian peace you seem to seek. We live, we kill eachother, we die - many species do this, though since we have a seemingly different consciousness, we consider humanity special. I could argue we do live harmoniously, just as every thing does - again, it is only by our application of "good" and "evil" that we begin to consider otherwise. In other words, even if we don't live peacefully, it doesn't mean we aren't being harmonious with the world (when I noted the word "harmony" in my initial question, I was addressing the idea of peace). Let me make this clear - even if tomorrow we blew up the entire planet with a nuclear weapon, we would have still lived harmoniously in my book... due to the law of entropy, we cannot create or destroy matter. Sure, we would have ended our consciousness, but realistically it is minuscule in the scheme of things (this may be where hubris comes into play). We wouldn't be able to live in total chaos, we live harmoniously without will.

"Utopian peace" is a journey. It is not a goal. It is that desire to insure tomorrow is better than today for all mankind is our destiny. In all due respect you thinking is evolutionary and animalistic. I am not a "Darwinist" in any stretch of the imagination. I will not and cannot be convinced of equating our existence to the animal we physiologically resemble. It is of no consequence to me whatsoever if this man was right or wrong, it is clearly evident we have far surpassed the nature of the beast, though in some respects it is hard to tell the difference. This is not natural selection, it has it own reasons. Just because it seems inhuman we assume it is the heritage of the beast. Not by a long shot, IMHO. Harmony is in my opinion nothing more than global cooperation of all human beings centered around a common goal: To live life to it fullest. Now in my opinion we are not living life, we are surviving it. It is more important the quantity of life that the quality of it. With quality, there is no life. I respectfully disagree in your assumption that harmony is peace as it is currently defined for that is not peace, it is only a respite from war, as it has always been. It is just a "breather". As long as we are divided as we are, there will never be peace. That's what happen's when you play king of the hill; there is always someone who wants to dethrone you. That's how the game is played. As far as blowing up the planet, I honestly don't think that will happen for we do have a reason for being. We may not last as I have a feeling we have tried more than once and have failed, let's hope we make it this time. I think it is our natural innate desire to be "in the flesh" than to go back to what we were.

Zetherin wrote:

3.) I couldn't agree more that every human should be free. I believe in true equality, and I also don't believe a human life should have a price tag. I'm a humanitarian, but I also consider that death may be vital to not only our further existence, but our atmospheres. By 2042 it is estimated that we will have 9 billion people on earth. If we do not begin exploring other living arrangements, we and our planet may be in trouble.

Here you have reach a very valid point and I agree. As we observe where these "populations are gathered, the majority at any rate, are around "profit centers". If you look at all the "uninhabited land" we have plenty of room for those on this planet. Now one of the primary concerns is the "livability" of those areas where people are not. I feel we have the technology and ecological expertise to turn wasteland into viable inhabitable land. Look at Dubai? Our biggest problem is the economical limitations. We have to come up with a reward or compensation system that is not based on rarity, but abundance and controlled. And it must be global. There is so much we could do if we were not hindered by the limitations of an economic system based on rare, objective value. In a growing population, that will lead to genocide. It is sheer stupidity, or a better term would be greed.

Unlike most, my thoughts are based on my reasoning and many cannot be corroborated. My only hope is that they make sense to you. They are all the results of what I have experienced as my mind is able to sort them out. If I conclude an absolute impossibility, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention for it no longer needs to be a part of my thinking process.

Thanks Zetherin for you contribution. It is greatly appreciated.

William

1 Reply

Can Knowledge Save Us.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know