Biggest Problem Facing Humanity

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Humans. That is the biggest problem against humanity

[Comrade Jenkens]

I personally think that energy is going to become a major problem. Once fossil fuels start running low and there isn't a viable replacement then the economy will crash in a way that it hasn't done before.

[Sochin]

Simple man itself.

[WestAir]

Here's a new one: What about advancing technology?

Eventually all the jobs that are done now will be outsourced to mechanized workers; Automated assembly lines, planes that fly themselves, taxi's that need no driver. Even the people who design, build, and maintain such sophisticated technologies will be replaced by machinery that can do the job better. We'll reach a point where there will be no point in jobs, because technology can always do it better than us. How can we continue to exchange goods when they're all produced and maintained by machinery? What happens to a society and an economy where the workforce doesn't exist?

[vetrox]

To be honest, this problem is rapidly disappearing. There are many online courses you can follow for free, in your own tempo and on the subjects you like. As soon as poorer countries have internet access, they can benefit from this. The knowledge gap is becoming a lot smaller than it once was.

Im aware of this and you make a valid point. However like someone has stated alot of people dont care. They have finished school and have their various qualifications and are stuck in the first long term career they find.

Ask various people around and very few people care. Global warming is not my problem, i will let the leaders deal with it. This is the general mentality of the world (in my opinion) Not only the U.S but most of the developed world. I just asked one of the cleaners at work as i type this. The reply was "Im not sure if its a problem so im not really fussed" She has her job, she will let the betters deal with the problems.

Everyone is so against communism yet they all have the mentality of a communist. I.E Let the government deal with it/make the decisions whilst i do the job I am given. Ok maybe its not communism but you might see what I'm getting at. I dont want to start a big political "how dare you call me a commie You deserve to goto jail" as thats not what im saying

A sad as it sounds KSP has re ignited my love of physics and astronomy...This doesnt help the world in any way however so maybe I should go back to college and maybe try to work for the ESA? Is that economically viable for me and my family however? probably not so i am stuck where i am contributing to the world by recycling my plastics.

[vetrox]

What happens to a society and an economy where the workforce doesn't exist?

With all jobs replaced by machines and no economy...sounds like bliss to me (there will always be an economy weather it be dollars, gold, or bottle caps. There will always be something of worth to trade)

With all of humanity free to do whatever who knows what could happen? We might all kill eachother, the religous might wage war against the machine, or we might travel to a distant galaxy.

[Alfondoo]

Glad to see a lot of logical, down-to-earth opinions on this topic. Very little argument going on which tells me that we mostly agree with each other; this also tells me that we are very like minded individuals who play KSP.

Personally my opinion, without going too deeply, is that without devising a new economic/political system that places our health, wellbeing and our species future at the forefront of it's purpose (instead of growth, wealth, power and control) we will slowly succumb to greed and circle the plughole of civilization.

It's interesting that government isn't on this list. I'd say this is currently one of the leading dangers to our civilization. Obviously when I say "government" what I really mean is the group of Directors and Chairmen that sit behind the politicians telling them what to do, but it's the way the political landscape is designed at the moment that enables power to so readily be bought and sold. When we have hundreds of next generation energy prospects on the horizon and none of them are being embraced, suppressed even, for fear of what wrath the petro-chemical companies will infer upon us you have to ask where we are going as a race. This neatly brings me onto money "without which, none of this would be possible"........ >.< doh!

[-Velocity-]

Here's a new one: What about advancing technology?

Eventually all the jobs that are done now will be outsourced to mechanized workers; Automated assembly lines, planes that fly themselves, taxi's that need no driver. Even the people who design, build, and maintain such sophisticated technologies will be replaced by machinery that can do the job better. We'll reach a point where there will be no point in jobs, because technology can always do it better than us. How can we continue to exchange goods when they're all produced and maintained by machinery? What happens to a society and an economy where the workforce doesn't exist?

Honestly, it seems to me, that the only way to keep humans viable might be to meld man and machine, perhaps in combination with genetic engineering/tailoring. Like, what if it were possible to supplement our intelligence with implanted bioelectronics? I do think that if we aren't willing to modify ourselves, we will end up being extremely obsolete eventually. This is another area where religion becomes a major pain in the side, this idiotic notion that "man should not exceed his bounds". Hopefully, this idea becomes obsolete before humans are obsolete.

But if humans DO become obsolete, as long as there is something better than us (morally and intellectually) to take over, I wouldn't be sad. I just don't want to see the spark of intelligence leave the universe; as far as we know (it's unlikely, but possible), we're the first pieces of matter to know itself. What is the point of the universe if there is no one around to appreciate it?

Edited October 8, 2013 by |Velocity|

[rkman]

The notion of the dark ages became popular during the enlightenment, but nowadays scholars and scientists are realising that it was not the retarded age we think it was. There was a lot going on back then.

I don't claim it was a retarded age nor that nothing was going on.

But it took about a thousand years before science, philosophy and society picked up where it had left off when Christianity became the dominant (dictatorial) political, social and cultural force in Europe. During that time there was very little progress in any of those.

advancing technology... What happens to a society and an economy where the workforce doesn't exist?

The same as what has been happening so far with advancing technology: by far most of the benefit befalls to the small powerful minority that has the means to apply that technology on a large scale.

That is, unless we - the not-so-powerful majority without whom the powerful and wealthy would not be nearly as powerful and wealthy as they are - figure out a way to change that.

Edited October 8, 2013 by rkman

[WestAir]

Honestly, it seems to me, that the only way to keep humans viable might be to meld man and machine, perhaps in combination with genetic engineering/tailoring. Like, what if it were possible to supplement our intelligence with implanted bioelectronics? I do think that if we aren't willing to modify ourselves, we will end up being extremely obsolete eventually. This is another area where religion becomes a major pain in the side, this idiotic notion that "man should not exceed his bounds". Hopefully, this idea becomes obsolete before humans are obsolete.

But if humans DO become obsolete, as long as there is something better than us (morally and intellectually) to take over, I wouldn't be sad. I just don't want to see the spark of intelligence leave the universe; as far as we know (it's unlikely, but possible), we're the first pieces of matter to know itself. What is the point of the universe if there is no one around to appreciate it?

Here's the better question. Is a man who is augmented with sophisticated technologies, and bio-engineered with sophisticated prosthesis (Like nano-tube bones and synthetic organs and whatnot) still human? Will such a transhuman even meld with todays society? I can't help but feel like if we start churning out super humans, they'll be a greater threat to humanity than any of the above because they'll start to replace us natural-born people. We'd be like Blondes - a dying bread.

[-Velocity-]

Here's the better question. Is a man who is augmented with sophisticated technologies, and bio-engineered with sophisticated prosthesis (Like nano-tube bones and synthetic organs and whatnot) still human? Will such a transhuman even meld with todays society?

I've got an even better question- why does it matter whether they are human or not? What is "human" anyway? Are we going to be nothing but xenophobic racists that only care for whatever we arbitrarily decide to call "human"? If there are one day things around that are unequivocally non-human, does that mean that we should not care what their feelings and desires are? If so, then humans are most definitely the enemy of all other intelligent life forms, and we will be probably be eradicated, and GOOD RIDDANCE. We would be nothing more than 3rd millennium Nazis, the superior "Aryan" race redefined to be only slightly more inclusive.

What happens in nature is that life forms evolve into better adapted, new forms. Why should humans be any different? Are we going to archaically cling to some obsolete form of "humanity" until we are so poorly adapted to a rapidly changing technological world that we become extinct entirely? Or are we willing to embrace the fact that evolution, whether by natural selection or intelligent design (where the intelligent designer is US), applies to all life forms, INCLUDING HUMANS. The genus Homo won't be gone, we'll just be something newer and BETTER than the current Homo sapiens. The new human life forms will be our descendants, our legacy, and something we should EAGERLY embrace.

Edited October 8, 2013 by |Velocity|

[PakledHostage]

Here's a new one: What about advancing technology?

...

What happens to a society and an economy where the workforce doesn't exist?

This raises another interesting one to think about: Autonomous weapons.

Daniel Suarez did a TED talk about this topic this past June. His talk was titled "The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot".

[WestAir]

I've got an even better question- why does it matter whether they are human or not? What is "human" anyway? Are we going to be nothing but xenophobic racists that only care for whatever we arbitrarily decide to call "human"? If there are one day things around that are unequivocally non-human, does that mean that we should not care what their feelings and desires are? If so, then humans are most definitely the enemy of all other intelligent life forms, and we will be probably be eradicated, and GOOD RIDDANCE. We would be nothing more than 3rd millennium Nazis, the superior "Aryan" race redefined to be only slightly more incl

What happens in nature is that life forms evolve into better adapted, new forms. Why should humans be any different? Are we going to archaically cling to some obsolete form of "humanity" until we are so poorly adapted to a rapidly changing technological world that we become extinct entirely? Or are we willing to embrace the fact that evolution, whether by natural selection or intelligent desire the intelligent designer is US), applies to all life forms, INCLUDING HUMANS. The genus Homo won't be gone, we'll just be something newer and BETTER than the current Homo sapiens. The new human life forms will be our descendants, our legacy, and something we should EAGERLY embrace.

Oh snap. I'm xenophobic and didn't even realize it till I read this.

I hope our ancestors can still cry, because this post was beautiful. The phrase "Good Riddance" can never be used to describe humanities extinction so long as people like you live.

[Drunken Hobo]

This raises another interesting one to think about: Autonomous weapons.

Daniel Suarez did a TED talk about this topic this past June. His talk was titled "The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot".

I wonder at what point we'll have a war between two countries where it's robot vs. robot, and if we'll suddenly realise how silly it's all become.

[Rassa Farlander]

This is an interesting thread. I voted Poverty and religion coming in a close second.

People dying every day because they cant afford to live, be it food, heathcare or otherwise, is just terrible. This is a huge problem which would require huge actions to correct. They are many factors that are the cause of the horrible situation.

I feel religion blinds us to what may really be out there. No one really knows, and it seems like religion takes the connection away from the world around us. Sorry to those who have faith in whatever, this is how I feel. Im not singling any one religion out, all are included in my statement.

[lajoswinkler]

This is an interesting thread. I voted Poverty and religion coming in a close second.

People dying every day because they cant afford to live, be it food, heathcare or otherwise, is just terrible. This is a huge problem which would require huge actions to correct. They are many factors that are the cause of the horrible situation.

I feel religion blinds us to what may really be out there. No one really knows, and it seems like religion takes the connection away from the world around us. Sorry to those who have faith in whatever, this is how I feel. Im not singling any one religion out, all are included in my statement.

Your apology is completely unnecessary.

[Dispatcher]

I'll wade in.

While we have the right to be critical of belief systems (be they regarding the origin of the cosmos, a planet or life [sometimes religion would fall into this category, but probably includes others such as what follow]), or political or social or economic, I think its wise to avoid criticizing or persecuting a person for holding their views (at least if they have not harmed you). Someone will always disagree with you. That does not make your views less valid or your detractors' views more valid. Its just a fact of life.

Let's assume that all religion is "man made". As such it would contain varying degrees of compatibility with other systems of belief or behavior (social systems, etc.). It would then follow that some religion might encourage systems which have a positive affect on the world, while others would be detrimental.

Let's take it further. Let's suppose that there really is a being or race of beings which humans would consider to be "divine". If that race or being communicated its agenda to humanity (or at least some humans; a "revealed" religion), then assuming that such a being or race was benign, such a belief system should have a positive impact on humanity.

I think it is foolish to claim that we humans, with limited senses, intellect, life span and experience; can claim that there are no such beings. In my opinion (and that is what everyone here has and is expressing; an opinion), the truly honest person (at least one who does not hold religious views) must be an Agnostic (as opposed to an Atheist, who is certain that there is no "deity"), because such an honest person realizes that he or she does not have all the facts and probably does not have the mental faculties to evaluate them all (at least as a race we may not yet have attained such useful abilities).

I voted that the greatest problem humanity faces, out of the selection, to be obtaining clean, sustainable energy. If we possess enough of that, we may solve the other categories of distress or threat.

[Bizz Keryear]

bugs in ksp / kOS.

well if I am serious its not just one.

Its Global warming/Climate change, Overpopulation and Sustainable Energy.

Also critical but not as much as above Poverty/Distribution of wealth and Education.

When fossil energy runs out and we haven't fixed our energy consumption / sources then Overpopulation will be fixed since Climate change and diseases will kill most poor and and or uneducated. (well uneducated means in most cases poor)

Well, War ever was and ever will be there as long as we are humans. I think (its sad but true) that is part of our nature.

If fossil really is running out ... then there will be war, and the war for the final resources will make look the WWII like a quarrel of kindergartners in a sandbox.

[Galacticruler]

Religions in general.

[czokletmuss]

No alternative to fossil fuels - without oil, uranium, coal or natural gas we don't have energy, without energy there is no industry, trade or commerce, without them there is no services sector and without it you don't have advanced society because most of its members have to work in agriculture sector.

BTW I'm surprised to see religion in the first place. We can have advanced society and religion, but to have advanced society without vast quantities of relatively cheap energy? I doubt that this is possible.

[lajoswinkler]

I'll wade in.

While we have the right to be critical of belief systems (be they regarding the origin of the cosmos, a planet or life [sometimes religion would fall into this category, but probably includes others such as what follow]), or political or social or economic, I think its wise to avoid criticizing or persecuting a person for holding their views (at least if they have not harmed you). Someone will always disagree with you. That does not make your views less valid or your detractors' views more valid. Its just a fact of life.

Let's assume that all religion is "man made". As such it would contain varying degrees of compatibility with other systems of belief or behavior (social systems, etc.). It would then follow that some religion might encourage systems which have a positive affect on the world, while others would be detrimental.

Let's take it further. Let's suppose that there really is a being or race of beings which humans would consider to be "divine". If that race or being communicated its agenda to humanity (or at least some humans; a "revealed" religion), then assuming that such a being or race was benign, such a belief system should have a positive impact on humanity.

I think it is foolish to claim that we humans, with limited senses, intellect, life span and experience; can claim that there are no such beings. In my opinion (and that is what everyone here has and is expressing; an opinion), the truly honest person (at least one who does not hold religious views) must be an Agnostic (as opposed to an Atheist, who is certain that there is no "deity"), because such an honest person realizes that he or she does not have all the facts and probably does not have the mental faculties to evaluate them all (at least as a race we may not yet have attained such useful abilities).

I voted that the greatest problem humanity faces, out of the selection, to be obtaining clean, sustainable energy. If we possess enough of that, we may solve the other categories of distress or threat.

Criticism is not persecution.

Atheists don't necessarily claim there is no deity. In fact, such claim would be absurd because it can't be tested and no knowledge about it exists. Such claims are of the gnostic atheists or hard atheists. Complete bollocks, if you ask me, a non-believer. I think such people are pretty stupid, and from my experience, they're mostly raised to actively not believe. That's not rational. It's nurture. I'd never raise my kid like that.

There are several "flavors" of non-belief and in fact most atheists seem to be of the rational kind. Agnostic atheists. They hold no beliefs and don't claim to know whether there is or isn't a deity/supernatural stuff. It's actually what we're born with. No beliefs and no knowledge about the supernatural. It's also the basis of science.

As for religion (organized, codified belief system of dogmas), it's painfully obvious it's similar to an error in the operating system. It's a plague that mainly gives people the reason to do horrible crimes. Even the good stuff it does is not truly good in its essence, but exists because of fear of punishment, hope for a reward, primitive honor, etc.

Of course it's man made. Its roots stem from the fear of early people that started anthropomorphizing natural phenomena they couldn't comprehend. First they began to fear, then they've started trying to calm down the storms, the eclipses, the earthquakes. Soon some guy with mental issues (or simply smart enough to exploit the fools) started claiming he has knowledge about it and shamans were born. Add some plant material that makes you hallucinate and you've got yourself a religion. Add art and you enrich it. Altars are created. "Sacred places" pop out.

Tens of thousands of years later, you've got a guy waving from a stone building with lots of precious metals, claiming he's on a hotline with Allmighty, or you've got dumbasses in deserts advocating for murders of "infidels" or simply females who don't cover their face and thus initiate erections from poor males who are forced to look at them.

The day religion dies will be the day humanity will get a proper chance to flourish.

With all this said, I think energy is a bigger problem. When you have no energy, you have nothing.

[magnemoe]

This raises another interesting one to think about: Autonomous weapons.

Daniel Suarez did a TED talk about this topic this past June. His talk was titled "The kill decision shouldn't belong to a robot".

However this is not new, autonomous weapons dates back to acoustic seeking torpedoes in WW2, followed by heat seeking anti air rockets in the 50s.

Mines who dates back to either US civil war or Chinese long before has always been autonomous, you deply them and they explode then stepped on or tripwire is pulled.

Since 1980 we has had something in between, an bomb, dropped by plane or shoot into the area with an rocket or cannon, it contains multiple small targeting bombs who search out the area for typically tanks and aims after them.

We are talking about two types of automatic weapons in the near future, both work after either of the two methods.

Replace the missile with an UAV who might shoot an missile, targeting works the same way, you paint the target and the UAV attacks. You can also assign an UAV an area to hunt for some time, this work much like the smart cluster bomb with the same rules of engagements, anything who fits the target parameters will be attacked (more about this)

Second is an automated gun or miniature automated tanks who replaces minefields. This has multiple benefits, first minefields are illegal in many countries, secondly they take time to deploy and is an bitch to remove. Last once deployed they are active.

The automated gun and more so the mini tank would be easy to place, easy to remove, it would be off by default so it will not attack friendly forces or civilians, then enemies in mass is out you activate it, for added effect wait until they are well inside, an added benefit of the mini tank is that it can repair holes.

Now an automated weapon actin very much on it own like the UAV with an area to hunt has an serious drawback outside of it hitting civilians or friendly forces. Any automated system today and in foreseeable future is so stupid it make an duck a genius, and it has even less practical sense.

Very easy for an enemy to get it to attack dummy targets even being pulled into kill boxes.

Finally it has rarely been an lack of evil people who helps doing atrocities, its more likely that the other side has far more hunter killer bots.

[Dispatcher]

As for religion (organized, codified belief system of dogmas), it's painfully obvious it's similar to an error in the operating system. It's a plague that mainly gives people the reason to do horrible crimes. Even the good stuff it does is not truly good in its essence, but exists because of fear of punishment, hope for a reward, primitive honor, etc.

Of course it's man made. Its roots stem from the fear of early people that started anthropomorphizing natural phenomena they couldn't comprehend. First they began to fear, then they've started trying to calm down the storms, the eclipses, the earthquakes. Soon some guy with mental issues (or simply smart enough to exploit the fools) started claiming he has knowledge about it and shamans were born. Add some plant material that makes you hallucinate and you've got yourself a religion. Add art and you enrich it. Altars are created. "Sacred places" pop out.

Tens of thousands of years later, you've got a guy waving from a stone building with lots of precious metals, claiming he's on a hotline with Allmighty, or you've got dumbasses in deserts advocating for murders of "infidels" or simply females who don't cover their face and thus initiate erections from poor males who are forced to look at them.

The day religion dies will be the day humanity will get a proper chance to flourish.

I'll accept your statement that an Atheist does not necessarily deny the existence of something that cannot be scientifically proved or disproved. Thanks for that.

Interesting. Yet your examples are certainly extreme ones, as were Hitler's attempts at burying a religious (and ethnic) group. Your view appears to be in opposition to the scientist quoted in this article, since you imply a gradual rise in both cultural and religious complexity (a common conception):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

The article quotes "first came the temple, then the city."

Edited October 8, 2013 by Dispatcher
Added detail.

[lajoswinkler]

Interesting. Your view appears to be in opposition to the scientist quoted in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

The article quotes "first came the temple, then the city." It is clear that a knowledge of science and art was needed to build that temple, too.

My view is the view held in all sciences that deal with humanity. I don't really understand how does an ancient temple say it's not correct. The fact that in this case a temple was probably made before a settlement does not say that the concept of religion was brought to people who were totally unaware of superstitious behaviour. It just says that in this case their belief was way too important for them.

I was talking about the periods when Homo sapiens was still in southern regions of Africa. The begginings of the human thought.

Göbekli Tepe was built long after that.

[magnemoe]

No alternative to fossil fuels - without oil, uranium, coal or natural gas we don't have energy, without energy there is no industry, trade or commerce, without them there is no services sector and without it you don't have advanced society because most of its members have to work in agriculture sector.

BTW I'm surprised to see religion in the first place. We can have advanced society and religion, but to have advanced society without vast quantities of relatively cheap energy? I doubt that this is possible.

Religion has not been an issue in more than 100 years in the west or other advanced countries, probably 150. Yes it has some impact in some areas however other political agendas has far larger effects.

Compare the anti nuclear campaign and the religious right in the US, who has had most impact?

Islamists is an security threat nothing more. Easy to knock back if massing.