Why can't humans solve the problems facing mankind?

Phillip Wylie once wrote that it may take about five hundred years for humanity to advance to a state of no war/social conscience, etc. I sometimes wonder if that is long enough.

Good question, Boss.

Discussing how to disseminate those benefits to the rest of the globe would seem to be completely on topic.

It would seem to be more on topic than simply dismissing the entire discussion as "human nature never changes," or making claims that the printing press and the telegraph didn't help people.

But whatevs.

We are still more interested in creating the problems. Solving them would be to simply stop making them. But we don't want to do that.

yes absolutely it is obvious how the concept of positive and right is totally despised
i must always point freedom values and superiority essential facts to hide meaning just normal right, like always right as the basic of nothing not for any

in destructions everyone sees the glory of being superior and free while at the same time using all elses and objective values, from the easiest concept of it concretisations

ur god i dont have another but i mean i cant consider that existing even though it is, love the will in one, the will substantial freedom move form is through destructions of all

i couldnt get why everyone talk about free will, now i get it a bit after too much u turns

superiority is the basic truth, freedom its positive result so its constancy and objective value

what ur god and u love is to b superior as to b constant existing, which is normal and not

normal bc yes u r right in meaning enjoying knowing ur true relativity to truth, so that excitement to mean objective superiority is kind of normal sense,
but what is not normal is to move as nothing to at all like u want to become it all from being its opposite so no relativity to truth nothing that u might even recognize being too

in truth of one, superiority is the sense drive to b plus

what is plus u even refuse to conceive it as u know it

plus is the same u but more which justify how u would become free as absolute more point totally out of everything so conscious stands

You haven't discussed how to disseminate those benefits to the rest of mankind. I have not said that technology hasn't helped some people, so that is typical of the sort of straw man in which you indulge when your vague comments are examined in detail. You simply pointed out that some people have benefited from technological change. You have not at all addressed how the problems which mankind faces can be solved, which is the burden of the thread. If you have a good idea of how to overcome greed, cupidity, venality, indifference and tribalism, i'd be happy to hear it.

Actually, I did discuss how benefits are being disseminated.

As usual, you avoid the real discussion in order to attack someone who dared to challenge your pronouncement that "human nature never changes."

No, in fact you didn't. You mentioned two or three initiatives attributed to the conveniently anonymous "they," which once again would benefit a few people, if anyone at all. You did not at all canvass how tehcnology will solve the problems facing mankind.

I didn't attack you; i did criticize your rhetorical style, such as introducing one straw man claim after another. Poor, poor DD, people are so mean to him.

In this post, EB pointe to two very basic problems which would need to be solved in order to begin to solve the problems facing mankind. Human nature doesn't change--which is why we have laws against murder, theft, fraud and a host of other crimes. Currently, rapacious capitalist greed and unbridled miltarism, to name but two, are not treated as criminal.

Then put me on "ignore," if you are not suffering from "hebetude." (In Foofie's opinion, "clothes make the man, and five dollar words makes the intellectually pretentious.")

u keep refusing to admit that reality is true so never u, while u know that since for u, existence is about takin advantage from absolute positive free ends so what u never do nor realize

u cannot solv anything objective

and if objective existence is absolute issue then the problem is real, so it is about recognizing it from its reasons and considering superior what is way away from it
while u love to attach urselves to what look existing even if it is **** just bc ur wills principally mean to never realize any by urselves

...what "absolute free ends" eh ? free from what ?
And why is "you" any less real then the world eh ???
Plus who said objectivity as to be solved by anyone ??? objectivity if anything is a state not a problem moron !!!
What the F*** do you mean with expressions like" if existence is absolute issue" ??? That is just retarded sentencing...and who the f*** told anything must be considered "superior" or "inferior"...things can come first or second, or last eventually, there are priority's at best, as things have an order...terming such ordering like superior or inferior is 3 world languaging dumb ass...why don't u peak up that freaking retarded aberration which is your mind and take it out of your ass for a change...Jeeezz you are a malignant wording tumour now pissing in every corner of a2k...who the f*** told you you can do philosophy with an 70 IQ score clown ? just get lost, don't u get it, this is no place for a pan troglodyte like u...

Sure, Bubba, whatever you say. Why don't you find someone else to be the target of your less than coherent bile?

I grant you that much, all that talk about the world being mean is sickening boring ! Normally the first retards complaining, as soon as they grab some power which is meagre at best and far apart , are usually the worst of them...in fact that is the main reason why I abore humanists pocket speeches, as I just can't stand the stink of their incoherent linear judgements...

Well, the topic is how to solve the problems facing mankind. It inferentially suggests technological solutions. My objection to the premise is that technological advances in the past have not solved the world's problems, and, further, that the world's problem are created anew as people attempt to plug the dike, because people are selfish, greedy, venal and indifferent. So my response is predicated on the claim that none of the world's problems can be reliably eliminated until the effects of those individual flaws can be negated. I'm really not interested in hearing about this bandage or that bandage which has been plastered on a little cut here and a little cut there, while the patient is bleeding to death from serious trauma.

You're the only one who can be 'selfish greedy etc. etc.', stop wasting time with your labels and move on with your life.

Technology solved smallpox.


That seems a bit hyperbolic.

When, exactly, in history have things been so much better than they are now?

I believe that Setanta's argument here is correct. History simply doesn't provide us any basis on whiuch to believe that either human organizations or technology will likely be able to create the "perfect world" (or individual versions of it) which has so captured the imagination of thinkers throughout recorded history. Plato had something to say about it, but even he ended up acknowledging that humanity would have to come up with some thoughtful, competent and dispassionate "philosopher kings" to make it all work. He never figured out how to do that, or offered any formula for doing so other than encouraging the development of a class of enlightened thinkers. All the subsequent attempts to organize "perfect societies" or to create "new thinking" among most people have ended up as failed tyrannies.

Competition, struggle and a degree of disorder and creative destruction appear to be built in to human nature.