Rob hit the nail on the head. All of the problems we are discussing in this thread would be easier to solve, and some would go away completely, if there were fewer humans on the planet.

Yes! Thank you. Nobody wants to talk about this because we might infringe upon the right of religious wackos to drop litters like dogs.

Entomologista, there is also the issue of our own extinction, which may stop us discussing the issue of "fewer humans on the planet." We could solve the problem both by reducing fertility (but we have already globally reduced our fertility in a massive way over the past 100 years). Or we could die quicker, making our numbers smaller, and making more room for other species...unfortunately, the global death rate is falling even faster than the birth rate, and we have no intention of refusing to avail of every extension of life expectancy that we can - thereby also imposing ourselves on the planet as destructively as anyone contemplating having a baby.

Sooner or later, purely for necessity's sake, people are going to have to learn how to put the proper value on the collective good of the species and set parochial interests aside. The alternative is extinction, or at least mass catastrophe. Can we do it? I'm optimistic that we can.

I tend to think that a mass catastrophe will be the catalyst that prompts humankind to reassess its collective and parochial values.

Rob hit the nail on the head. All of the problems we are discussing in this thread would be easier to solve, and some would go away completely, if there were fewer humans on the planet.

Yes! Thank you. Nobody wants to talk about this because we might infringe upon the right of religious wackos to drop litters like dogs.

Why? We shine the brightest when competing with one another.

Justify this statement.

Also, 'cooperation' sounds suspiciously like 'forced government servitude.' I know you fantasize about a happy, friendly future in which the flower children hold hands and work together for everyone's good; but in the real word certain societies have tried to force everyone to cooperate for the greater good. It ended poorly.
I would be immediately suspicious and against any group that wanted to help the world by getting us all to cooperate. I suspect that many (if not most) people would agree with me on that.

The fact that you apparently don't differentiate between encouraging cooperation and demanding total submission to an agenda is a sad commentary on your state of mind.

Also, an arrangement in which people's cooperation is enforced (IE, coerced if necessary) in certain areas is kind of the underpinning of an organized society even existing. Such arrangements can be abused, and have been, this is true; the absence of them has been abused far more thoroughly whenever it has prevailed.

The literal meaning of the word "apotheosis" is "elevation to divine status" - and as I've previously said, I reject the idea that this should be our goal. The gods are petty, jealous, easily provoked creatures; they embody our worst traits, not our best, and we shouldn't be seeking to emulate them.

Have I told you I love you, Ebonmuse? I am saving that quote, and if I ever finish my damned story I am totally thanking you in the dedication because that is bound to figure as a big inspiration! (I'm on act two right now, and I was kind of stuck with the concepts and metaphors. In fact, where the action is for Act Two makes this a perfect thought to get me going! Thanks!)

I love that you mentioned that we may never see that day. I think that's the biggest problem is that magic-bullet solutions that won't work are much more attractive, because who wants to spend their life working toward a better future that you might not even see for generations? I had a friend in HS who thought I was a racist because I tended to tear apart her brilliant ideas of "well, if we just outlawed racism, then it would go away, dont' you see?" Like that hasn't been tried before, and like it's ever worked, beyond the apparent ethical bankruptcy of simply outlawing opinions. I hate racism too, but lets face it, law can only go so far. You can make that white supremacist give a black guy a fair shake, but you can never force him to like it, and certainly not by making it illegal for him to dislike it. That basis of racism is something that will take generations of delicate but difficult effort to achieve, always edging uphill while constantly trying to keep that insistent weight of our tribalistic roots from dragging us any further back and ruining our progress. Same for every other irrational and tribalistic characteristic of our society--there are no magic-bullets even for individual psychology, much less the overwhelming collective problem we have right now. In fact, magic bullets tend to make things worse, IMO.

And personally, I prefer the wasp in the room to be visible. If it's out in the open, it can be squashed, but if it's hidden it's all the more likely to bite you in the ass. Same with bad ideas, which can only be effectively fought by using good ideas, not by legislation.

Sad thing was, she was an honor student. Apparently history wasn't really her strong suit. Of course, in her defense, she was one of those goody-two-shoes who obeyed anything that was a "rule". Wouldn't even put a chocolate bar in her pocket at the movies because it was against the rules. So she might have had difficulty understanding how not everyone feels the impulse to unquestioningly obey when they see something listed as a "rule", and so couldn't envision any other possible outcome than every white supremacist dutifully throwing the switch in their heads to "not racist".

I've often thought that "idealist vs. realist" would be more attuned to reality than "good vs. evil". Not that realists can't have ideals, but a realist is aware of what can work and can face the unpleasant reality that (s)he might not see the results. It takes a special kind of maturity that I don't think a lot of people have, same as "freedom" takes the maturity to accept that people who disagree have an equal share in that freedom.

There is an advantage to the realist position, I think. It does seem kind of depressing that you might not get to benefit from your efforts, but at the same time it makes the goal seem more possible. I think it can be very overwhelming to see it from an idealist perspective, wherein you need to envision "everything" being fixed by the time you kick off. You take a look at how much has to be done and how little time you actually have, and you think "aw,fuck it, there's nothing I can do, so why should I be inconvenienced"--a combination of all the negative characteristics you cited, made all the worse by the sense of complete helplessness before the problem. I think that the realist position can be framed in a more positive and attractive light when you take this into consideration, because then even the little a single person like you can do in your lifetime counts for something and no effort is ever futile.

Never used tags before. Hope this blockquote thing shows up right like it is in the preview. Took me long enough to figure it out!

What we need to do is to design a society that favors cooperation.

Why? We shine the brightest when competing with one another. Also, 'cooperation' sounds suspiciously like 'forced government servitude.' I know you fantasize about a happy, friendly future in which the flower children hold hands and work together for everyone's good; but in the real word certain societies have tried to force everyone to cooperate for the greater good. It ended poorly.
I would be immediately suspicious and against any group that wanted to help the world by getting us all to cooperate. I suspect that many (if not most) people would agree with me on that.

What we need to do is to design a society that favors cooperation.

Sounds awfully socialist to me!
:)

Indubitably.

And no, I certainly didn't mean to imply that there is one ultimate fix. All I'm trying to say is that a grand awakening will not necessarily fix the problem that much faster. Maybe we'd be a decade ahead of where we are now, which would probably be immensely helpful. As I understand the state of our knowledge right now, though, it's unclear how much of the problem that would really fix, in that we may already have been too late by the time there was any kind of consensus that the problem even existed. (But hey, I'm just a layman with a high school education trying to parse what I read on the internet. Don't take that as an authoritative statement.)

As for the the ongoing extinction of species and the destruction of their habitat, a lot of that is the result of our own human habitat expanding, as well as overcrowding and natural competition. Sad as it is, there will be many more of these to come if our population continues to grow at even a fraction of its current rate, grand awakening or no.

Rob hit the nail on the head. All of the problems we are discussing in this thread would be easier to solve, and some would go away completely, if there were fewer humans on the planet.

Much can be accomplished when governments put sensible incentives into place. The widespread adoption of solar photovoltaics in Germany is a good example. My concern is whether or not enough governments will institute enough sensible incentives soon enough to avert a global ecological disaster. I confess I am not optimistic.

As free thinking individuals we can, will, and should disagree on a whole range of issues. Disagreement is not a bad thing.

I don't entirely agree with that assessment, penn. I think the value of disagreement is only instrumental: many issues are complex, the truth is hard to discern, and it makes sense to have an adversarial system of free speech so that we can hash out whose position is right and whose wrong. Having a diversity of viewpoints gives us a greater chance that at least one of them will be correct. But disagreement is not an intrinsic good; there's nothing praiseworthy in disagreeing with the truth, once it's sufficiently clear what the truth is.

You're asking us to be better predictors than the luckiest, cleverest science fiction writers. How likely is that?

I don't think I'm asking that, Lynet. I'm not saying the problem is that people, up till now, fail to foresee the negative consequences of some technology from the very beginning. The problem is that people continue to use that technology even after its negative effects are abundantly clear. To just one example, there are still people arguing that there's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change, and that even if there was, it would be a good thing.

There are still far too many people willing to put their narrow, short-term self-interest over the long-term good of humanity. That's a trend that we can't sustain forever. Sooner or later, purely for necessity's sake, people are going to have to learn how to put the proper value on the collective good of the species and set parochial interests aside. The alternative is extinction, or at least mass catastrophe. Can we do it? I'm optimistic that we can.

Global climate change and drug resistance are known problems, but there is no consensus on what the best fix is. The statement that our knowledge exceeds our wisdom suggests to me that we know the perfect solution, but don't particularly care about implementing it. In fact, both of these problems are being addressed in a variety of ways, and any solution will take many years to implement. In both cases, there are certainly things we could have done to make the problem less bad. But in the case of global warming, we still don't know what the ultimate fix will be.

There won't be a single ultimate fix, rob, but I'm sure you weren't implying that. I realize that these aren't problems that can be solved overnight. But there are many things which we indisputably can do, which will immediately begin to alleviate the problem, and which are unavoidable components of any long-term solution. In the case of climate change, we need to increase the uptake of alternative energy sources, and transition away from a fossil-fuel-based economy as rapidly as possible. That should be a no-brainer, yet there are still utilities trying to build new coal-fired power plants and to open new mountaintop removal mines. A total decarbonization of our economy will take a while, even with everyone cooperating; but everyone is not cooperating, and there are still special interests actively working to set back the cause of reform.

Humans are born thinking only of themselves, and have to learn to put the good of others first. Some never learn this.

BruceA makes the point admirably, and I agree: we're faced with a multitude of prisoner's dilemmas, and we need to teach people to cooperate. Where I disagree is that selfishness is intrinsic and cooperation is learned. Human beings have the inborn capacity for both impulses. Which one is expressed more strongly depends on environment and upbringing. What we need to do is to design a society that favors cooperation.