Biggest Problem Facing Humanity

[Person012345]

I don't think that some educational elite is the answer btw. The entire human race needs a good level of education, then things will fall into place for it. Before that it's useless to even think of some sort of utopia. The super-intelligent are great for speeding up progress towards actual solutions when we decide we want them, but if society as a whole doesn't demand good, rational solutions to the problems we face then they won't happen. When a society is capable of analyzing the evidence and making critical decisions about what needs to be done, then they will begin doing it.

Not that I think this will ever happen because we as a species are our own worst enemy. No single other thing holds us back as a species as much as the individual members and the way they make irrational knee-jerk reactions and allow themselves to be misled and brainwashed does right now.

Edited October 14, 2013 by Person012345

[K^2]

And you'll note that I didn't insist that we need just an educated elite. I've specifically noted that looking after average and even bellow average students is a good thing. But if you don't have enough highly educated people, you end up without qualified teachers in the next generation, and then everyone's education goes to the dogs. It won't matter if you try to get average students a solid education, because their teachers were the bottom of the barrel.

[Person012345]

And you'll note that I didn't insist that we need just an educated elite. I've specifically noted that looking after average and even bellow average students is a good thing. But if you don't have enough highly educated people, you end up without qualified teachers in the next generation, and then everyone's education goes to the dogs. It won't matter if you try to get average students a solid education, because their teachers were the bottom of the barrel.

I wasn't making a counter point to you specifically. I was just making my position clear.

[mdatspace]

Global warming is a problem. But it is slow. It is not immediate. It causes a varied amount of problems. However, it is not dire enough now to provoke action. It is not such a threat to developed countries that they should spend large sums of money on combating GW and finding a way to solve it.

Poverty is a big problem. Poverty is one of the most focused on issues there is. However, poverty is still there.

We need better education. We can all agree on that.

War? War is mostly confined in undeveloped countries. Once those countries modernize, war will die out as a possibility.

Religion is an issue. It blinds people to what the world really is. It makes people predetermine the world and what it encompasses, and when reality shows otherwise, they dismiss and ignore it.

I think overpopulation.

[Skyler4856]

My solution for over population? If bill has an above average iq he can have 3 children. If bob has an average iq he can have 2. if Jedediah has a below average iq he can only have 1 child.

[K^2]

My solution for over population? If bill has an above average iq he can have 3 children. If bob has an average iq he can have 2. if Jedediah has a below average iq he can only have 1 child.

And you are planning to enforce that how?

[Skyler4856]

And you are planning to enforce that how?

Tax incentives!

And an iq test given annual to citizens.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Skyler4856

[K^2]

Tax incentives!

And an iq test given annual to citizens.

You've just taken the segment of population that can't afford to have any children, but breed anyway, raising children on welfare, and made them even poorer.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the idea itself is bad. It's just that I can't think of any way to make it work without ending up with all sorts of other problems, and probably an armed rebellion in the Southern States.

[rkman]

overpopulation is a myth

Both of the world's leading authorities on food distribution (the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] and the World Food Programme [WFP]) are very clear: there is more than enough food for everyone on the planet. The FAO neatly summarizes the problem of starvation, saying that "the world currently produces enough food for everybody, but many people do not have access to it." Food is a lot like money: just because some people have none doesn't mean that there isn't enough of it--it's just spread unevenly.

Episode 3: Food: There's lots of it

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

[K^2]

The reason I appreciate Skyler's idea is not because it controls population so much as it creates a bit of selection based on IQ. Not so strong as to cause major problems, but enough to nudge it in the right direction. Currently, people with higher levels of education, income, and intelligence, tend to have less than two children on average. When the overall population is growing or stable, it's kind of a scary thought.

Fortunately, we're on the edge of starting to do genetic modifications of the future generations, and the "improved" genes are bound to trickle down through population, so I don't think we're in serious danger of degradation, but it'd be nice to provide other incentives for improvements as well. Just so long as we don't do anything drastic or get down to full-blown eugenics.

[Skyler4856]

The reason I appreciate Skyler's idea is not because it controls population so much as it creates a bit of selection based on IQ. Not so strong as to cause major problems, but enough to nudge it in the right direction. Currently, people with higher levels of education, income, and intelligence, tend to have less than two children on average. When the overall population is growing or stable, it's kind of a scary thought.

Fortunately, we're on the edge of starting to do genetic modifications of the future generations, and the "improved" genes are bound to trickle down through population, so I don't think we're in serious danger of degradation, but it'd be nice to provide other incentives for improvements as well. Just so long as we don't do anything drastic or get down to full-blown eugenics.

It is certainly better than blanket control, and was originally designed for a post apocalyptic civilization (it was a class project)

[Themohawkninja]

Global Warming - Possibly, but too much uncertainty about timespans and specifics.

Poverty - Not really. Poverty isn't a problem at all as far as the human race is concerned. It is what results from poverty that is the issue.

Famine - Perhaps, although this is due to the distribution of goods more so than shortage.

Disease - Will go away in time with science, that is unless medicine gets so good that we have no immune system to ward off any infection.

Education - Always increasing with the advancements in science. This option should be specified to Creationism.

War - Inevitable. Plus, humanity has survived enough wars to affirm my belief that war won't be the end of mankind.

Religion (theism) - Probably will die out within the next few centuries and be no more than estranged cults.

Sustainable energy - I'm not buying it. I'm pretty confident that advancements in solar and fusion power will solve this in due time.

Overpopulation - Like global warming, too much uncertainty. Unlike global warming, it's still up for debate as to whether or not it's even a problem.

[Spartan125]

I find it is many peoples beliefs (religious or not) that are holding back ways to counteract the other problems.

[Nibb31]

overpopulation is a myth

That web site is a scam. If you look at the "Donate" page, the organization behind it is called "Population Research Institute", which is a para-religious lobby group whose agenda is to ban abortion, contraceptives and family planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Research_Institute

http://www.interacademies.net/10878/19191.aspx

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3503909.html

http://www.unep.org/geo/pdfs/geo5/GEO5_report_full_en.pdf

Overpopulation is a reality. It is simply ludicrous to believe that we can simultaneously maintain infinite population growth and infinite economic growth on a planet where resources are finite.

We can increase productivity and distribution, but those are on logarithmic curves. There are dimishing returns, like wringing water out of a soaked towel: there will always be some water left in it, but the more you squeeze out of it, the more energy you need to spend.

With efficiency increasing on a logarithmic curve, and population growing on an exponential curve (or at best a linear curve if you are optimistic), we are in for trouble. At some point, demand exceeds production. We are already eating up our reserves. Humanity's ecological footprint is around 1.5 planet Earths, which means that we use resources 1.5 times faster than Earth can renew them. This can only last for so long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

[maccollo]

The main problem that faces humanity is the potential collapse of modern civilization from either the potential shock or world peak oil, or catastrophic climate change.

Essentially what it would equate to is catastrophic increase in poverty and overpopulation, because our civilization cannot get enough cheap energy for food production and other things, that's the same as a rapidly decline carrying capacity of the our ecosystem.

[rkman]

Overpopulation is a reality.

Maybe, but this:

It is simply ludicrous to believe that we can simultaneously maintain infinite population growth and infinite economic growth on a planet where resources are finite.

is a poor argument to support that assertion;

the fact that infinite growth is not possible does not mean there currently is overpopulation.

Seriously, where/what is the evidence that there currently is overpopulation (rather than it generally being a possibility)?

On the other hand, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization really does say the world produces enough food to provide everyone:

In 1996 the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated that the world was producing enough food to provide every man, woman and child with 2,700 calories a day, several hundred more than most adults are thought to need (around 2,100 a day). The Lancet, a medical journal, reckons people need no more than 90 grammes of meat a day. On average they eat more than that now. As Abhijit Banerjee of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says, “we live in a world that is capable of feeding every person that lives on the planet.â€Âhttp://www.economist.com/node/18200702

and The Economist confirms:

Indeed, the world produces more than just enough to go round. Allowing for all the food that could be eaten but is turned into biofuels, and the staggering amounts wasted on the way, farmers are already producing much more than is requiredâ€â€more than twice the minimum nutritional needs by some measures. If there is a food problem, it does not look like a technical or biological one. http://www.economist.com/node/18200702

As does the World Food Programme:

"The world produces enough to feed the entire global population of 7 billion people." http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes

Edited January 6, 2014 by rkman

[Klingon Admiral]

The problem is that we kind of strain our planet's ecosystem while (theoretically) providing 7 billion people with food.

[Champ]

The fact is that USA is one country on Earth. Solving its problems will not solve Earth population problems. Just look at India and China. Both have exceeded 1 billion residents, each, and their social development is way below the average even though they have the capability to reach orbit.

Please define "social development"...

[Nibb31]

Seriously, where/what is the evidence that there currently is overpopulation (rather than it generally being a possibility)?

The links I provided kind of answered that already.

On the other hand, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization really does say the world produces enough food to provide everyone:

Yes, we can in theory. But the fact that people are starving proves that there are practical limits to that theory because there are always inefficiencies in every system.

It also doesn't mean that we can sustain that kind of production for a durable period. As I said already, we are currently consuming 150% of what the Earth can provide durably.

It's also a question of quality of life. What is the point of being 7 or 8 or 9 billion if we have to ration ourselves to 2700 calories/day or if 80% of that population has no hope of ever living decently. What about enjoying food, variety, pleasure? And it's not just about food. The global footprint problem is also about energy.

If the 7 billion humans on Earth all had the same quality of life as the 250 million Americans, the Earth would be exhausted in a couple of months. These billions of people would love to have a car, air-conditioning, health care... Do we really have the resources to provide all of that to everybody? Is it really worth having 9 billion people living in extreme imbalance when we could limit ourselves to say 5 billion (the World's population in the 1980's) and share the wealth more decently.

[rkman]

The question is to what extent those inefficiencies can be mitigated, which relates to the causes of those inefficiencies.

Some inefficiency is inherent in any system, but when it comes to human economic activity there is also the factor of exploitation of the weak by the strong.

That is a moral/ethical and ultimately a political issue, not a fundamental technical one.

It is not disputed that the strong tend to exploit the weak, is it? Nor is there any indication that at some point in the past that stopped happening.

Any discussion about overpopulation that does not address that issue is in my mind suspect of self-serving bias.

[TechnicalK3rbal]

Our stupidity

I'd say that sums it up pretty well

You read my mind.

[Seret]

Population and poverty/distribution of wealth are the same problem really. Raising the standard of living in the developing world is the easiest and most effective way to control population growth. With current projections of growth and development the world's population should top out at about 10 billion somewhere around the end of the century. At that point providing enough energy cleanly enough for a population of 10 billion with that standard of living will become a real problem. The western nations have a really important role to play in exploring ways to use energy more efficiently, and to decouple energy use from GDP to an even greater extent than we've managed so far.

[Kinglet]

Sorry, I was interrupted, might also misunderstood you.

However China will get an serious problem in 30 years then they suddenly get lots of old people while starts to running out of workers.

In 50 years the lack of workers will be an serious problem. The west get hit first but the effect is more gradual and wages and living conditions makes it easy to attract people.

The only thing you need are robots and engineers.

[Nibb31]

Population and poverty/distribution of wealth are the same problem really. Raising the standard of living in the developing world is the easiest and most effective way to control population growth.

Exactly. The problem with this is that raising the standard of living 1 billion Africans, 1.5 billion Indians and 1.3 billion Chinese is going to require resources. The planet simply can't support 8 billion people living like Americans or Europeans.

There are really only two ways for us to keep on sharing the pie: either reduce the number of guests or reduce the size of each piece. Nobody wants a smaller piece of pie.

[peadar1987]

While there might be enough food to provide for everyone on the planet, that's not the biggest problem with overpopulation, it's providing people with energy, sanitation and consumer goods. We can feed everyone in the world and not have a problem, but we can't give everyone a nice house and a flashy car, because it will destroy the environment (at least with current resources and technology)