Is the World Better or Worse?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Inc,

Hi TD,

Regardless of whether we live long or die young, I think most people are basically good.

Though the humanity of various cultures may be a bit cyclical, as a whole nothing has changed much.

I don't think the blood drenched 2nd coming Jesus is needed any more than he was needed last century.

I'm moving to a place where I think most people have a "good side". But lately, I wonder about the Homo Sapien Sapien. I wonder if the inherent greed, selfishness, need for power, dominance, and glory isn't going to be our downfall. I don't know.

I think of our time sort of like the Earth during the oxygen revolution... life about ended until a few little creatures figured out a way to survive. Maybe we are facing a similar situation when, unless we figure out some new ways of existing we won't make it?

Regardless, I'm with you, I don't see the world in such a critical state that a second coming would be required.

~td~

[_truth dancer]

Hi JAK,

When we look at the entire world population, I do think things are changing but I think it is really, REALLY slow going.

While in the US (and in other developed countries) we have people who can "move up" the economic ladder, I don't know how many people really move dramatically up. I'm guessing most move up a little, one rung on the ladder, (smile). However, if we look at the rest of the world, the cast system is still alive and well, and there is little opportunity for most people to make dramatic changes. (I think).

I was actually thinking today how really similar we are to the various hierarchical or stratified levels of society that have existed throughout history. The names, laws, and some of the dynamics have changed but they are pretty much the same as they have always been.

The rich get richer, they get an education, make the laws, run the town/country/state/religion, have the control and power. The poor work, and play their role in society.

Another thing, in terms of the end of the world and signs of the times, is an economic crisis even on God's radar How about global warming? What difference do these types of problems make to God?

~td~

TD,

Your philosophical question at the top is an interesting one. At the same time, it is critical to have an understanding of what you mean by the term “better.”

If “better” means greater information which is accurate and applicable to various problems and situations, of course the world is better. If you mean by that term a host of other things, the answer may be the world is not better. We are each left to place our own thoughts on the term.

Your reference to “God” is reference to a term about which there is great difference in points of view. You assume an interest which God has. In so doing, you also assume some notion of “God.”

There is certainly room for a wide variety of responses to your question and room for people to apply their own notions of “better” vs. worse which is implicit in your opening.

JAK

Yes, I am hoping people will share their personal notions of what is better or worse... how they interpret this, which of course is different for each of us.

In terms of God, well not being a believer in a personal God, ( )again I am looking for opinions and ideas however one sees or experiences it.

Just contemplating and speculating a little!

~td~

[_truth dancer]

Hey Trevor,

The good parts are amazing, and the bad parts are frightening. Humanity has advanced at the expense of just about everything else. When it all catches up to us, it's gonna be a catastrophic bummer. I think I see it on the horizon, and I hope I am wrong.

Would you elaborate on this a bit? What do you see as the good and bad parts? What do you envision may happen? What do you see on the horizon?

I think I feel similarly, but not sure. While I certainly see some amazing advancements, I also see some serious concerns that I do not think we have ever faced before.

While humans have been fabulously creative in overcoming our struggles, it seems the environment is changing faster than we can adapt.

~td~

[_Inconceivable]

..I wonder if the inherent greed, selfishness, need for power, dominance, and glory isn't going to be our downfall. I don't know.

I think of our time sort of like the Earth during the oxygen revolution... life about ended until a few little creatures figured out a way to survive. Maybe we are facing a similar situation when, unless we figure out some new ways of existing we won't make it?

Regardless, I'm with you, I don't see the world in such a critical state that a second coming would be required.

~td~

I don't know if greed, selfishness etc.. is actually inherent. History generally only glorifies the a handful of those that effect the little people. I don't think it's fair to categorize any civilization by the character of their leaders.

For thousands of years, there have been fathers and mothers that have loved and nurtured their children, taken care of their parents and gotten along with their neighbors.

Every so often, some evil guy swoops in with a conscripted army and takes their chickens. When the evil dude is gone, those that are left, repair that fabric we call civilization.

The purpose of life isn't about distractions like dinnerware and deodorant. I think most people realize (anywhere and everywhere) that purpose comes through finding happiness by love, empathy, a respect for others and the physical environment around them - and passing on the good stuff. If this weren't the case, evil/chaos would be the norm rather than an unwelcome cyclical phenomenon.

Yeah, we could write libraries full of books about it, but I think this is pretty much the one thing.

[_Inconceivable]

If the earth loses it's ozone and boils itself, gets popped by a meteor and slows to a stop or rolls up like a scroll, perpetuation of mortality will eventually cease to exist.

But when we die, can we take it with us anyway? What is it that we do take with us?

Sure we ought to maintain our environment as best as we can, but from a spiritual perspective how much does mortallity really matter when our life here is so temporary anyway?

Just wondering..

Maybe our goodness perpetuates in spite of the state of our physical environment or our mortallity?

[_antishock8]

Jared Diamond wrote an interesting book called Collapse.

http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societie ... 0670033375

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_ ... or_Succeed

Every organic system tends overutilize its environment until it suffers a catastrophic collapse. Human societies haven't really been any different until our recent ability to stave off the inevitable. One of the more interesting fiction books I've read deals with this conundrum:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_in_God's_Eye

The book details "cycles" that the alien species undergoes because of its tendency to experience population explosions.

The Moties [AS8: aliens] are sequential hermaphrodites, changing sex over and over again during the course of their lives. However, if a Motie remains female for too long without becoming pregnant, the hormone imbalance will kill her. This characteristic ensures a never-ending population explosion. Attempts at population control through chemicals or infanticide have always failed for the Moties, because those who (secretly or openly) breed uncontrollably eventually swamp those Moties who comply. Once the population pressure rises high enough, massive wars inevitably result.

We can see similar trends in human populations. Humans that are a little smarter see the big picture and offer solutions for long-term viability of the species. However, too many humans are mired in their own biology to give a rat's ass about the big picture. They just want to "get their own", thus ensuring the eventual collapse of our civilization... To be replaced by another one down the road. This is all very natural, and barring a militaristic totalitarian state the likelihood of people living and reproducing responsibly is low. China is a good case study for overpopulation and a state solution to the problem. India/Pakistan/East Pakistan-Bangladesh is a good case study for a naturalistic solution to overpopulation. It'll be interesting to see how both countries, and everyone for that matter, deal with the challenges of hyperpopulation and the competition for space and resources.

[_JAK]

There are many other examples, Harmony, which I’m sure you can recognize. Consider the bail-out of AIG and American banks, the auto industry, etc. Those at the top still are taking in tens of millions of dollars even as their companies are pleading for government help. Wealth transfers up.

JAK

I don't dispute that at all, JAK. It's no mystery to me why the poor get poorer as the rich get richer. I'm just trying to put a brake on them dying at significantly higher rates.

Harmony,

I understand your feelings here. At the same time, I suspect you know that half the world’s human population lives in poverty and starvation. They lack the medical science which Western world countries have. And even in the Western world, there are millions of people without health care, without insurance, and without employment.

How would you “put the brakes on them dying at significantly higher rates”? To do that requires that wealth to and for those who don’t need it be transferred to those who do need it. That is, we don’t just print money and give it out (generally).

In order to achieve your laudable goal, capitalism which transfers wealth up needs something which reduces that reality. One way to do that is to increase the tax load on the wealthy. We have had a free market without restriction of wealth transfer. There are still many who propose cutting tax on the wealthy or a flat tax (everyone pays the same percentage). The latter is regressive against the poor and would exacerbate the very problem you wish to solve.

There is another kind of tax which might address your concern. It’s the Value Added Tax. That’s a tax placed on yachts, second, third, and fourth homes, luxury cars, multiple cars beyond three, etc. That is by no means a comprehensive list of things which could reduce the “dying at significantly higher rates.” There are others. Education and skill is critical to accomplish your goal. That is, people must be able to help themselves. What can the wealthy do to enable the poor to help themselves? The cost of poverty is far greater than the cost to educate people to secure their own future with marketable skills. Poverty results in death – death from illegal drugs, death from no medical care, death from ignorance about how people can help themselves.

The goal which you advocate cannot be done by volunteerism. We have witnessed that clearly in the past decade. That is not to discourage volunteerism. It’s a beneficial thing. One problem is that those who volunteer are often those who, themselves, are close to the margin of real need.

What is your proposal to solve for the problem you articulate? Given our global population dynamics (6 billion people), the countries which are well to do are limited on what they can do for the underdeveloped countries. Providing food, for example, without providing medical health care may be counter-productive. Education is a costly proposition for the poorest of countries. The USA presently has its own crisis in finance and productivity. And the USA is presumed to be the most wealthy, innovative country by many. If that is true, the USA would appear to have the responsibility to lead in the solution to the problem which you articulate.

JAK

[_harmony]

How would you “put the brakes on them dying at significantly higher rates”?

Every problem has a solution, a combination of solutions. I cannot save the world, JAK. I can't even save my friend, my neighbor, from dying. My husband took her to the hospital last night, and things are not looking good. But if I just sit around, wringing my hands, talking about the massiveness of the problem... the problem will just get bigger tomorrow.

I have an idea (isn't that where every solution starts? someone has an idea?) and with a little help from a friend, a tiny bit of seed money, less than $3000, I put the idea into action a couple of years ago in a very limited population with very specific partners. It was a spectacular success but needed a lot of tweaking, and I don't have time for tweaking when I run a team of fundraisers. The head of the agency at that time had no interest in my idea, but she has now retired. The current head of my agency is a friend of mine, who heard about my idea, and sees promise in it, because for him, we should be looking for solutions to our local problems, not just raising money for national.

He's asked me to start developing the idea further with the idea of implementing it across our rural counties within 2-3 years. I'll run a mini of the idea in June at one of my events, and the full blown pilot this fall at another staff person's event. And we'll study the evaluations, make appropriate changes, and see if we have any impact on the lifestyle choices that keep the poor so far ahead of other economic classifications in the dying department. (when I say we, I mean myself, my friend the CEO, and his friend on the faculty at our biggest state university).

I don't need a lot of money for this idea, JAK. I'm not trying to save the world tomorrow. What I need is some specific skills in cultural competency, commuity mobilization, and network building. And I have those. I've got 6-7 years to show progress, before my friend has to stand in front of the Board and show that over time this idea has made a significant impact. I know this already works on a limited basis (and I have the national awards to prove it), so it's a matter of expanding my network and developing alternative methods to achieving the same result, because not all counties are alike.

No, I'm not going to save the world's poor from dying younger, dying harder and dying from diseases their rich neighbors treat with ease. I'm just trying to lower the mortality rates in my rural counties. I cannot do everything, but I can do this one thing, and so I will at least try, instead of sitting around discussing the problem ad nauseum yet offering no solutions.

At least in my counties, I don't have to worry about the #1 killer in our world: the impact of war. Most of these counties don't even have gang problems.

[_Jersey Girl]

harm,

As the project expands to cover more rural areas, will you not need additional funding (wealth) in order to support the bureaucratic machine that it will eventually require to drive it?

I totally identify with what you stated "But I can do this one thing". That's how I feel about my work with children.

[_harmony]

harm,

As the project expands to cover more rural areas, will you not need additional funding (wealth) in order to support the bureaucratic machine that it will eventually require to drive it?

This isn't a free standing project. I have always been one to build on what exists, rather than build an unrelated silo. The only thing that will needed as this project expands is we will probably have to hire more staff to expand into the counties in which we currently are not working. But that was always the plan anyway.

This is a change in the way we deliver our product, a change in who we consider our partners, and a change in the way we work with our partners. It will require training for our staff from the top down (because our senior staff are remarkably unschooled in things like health disparities, cultural competency and community mobilization), we will have to build unconventional partnerships, and we will have a major change in focus from pure fundraising to more mission driven. We have become a major force in fundraising; we are very very very good at fundraising, yet our mission says nothing about fundraising.

The new boss intends to elevate mission, since he knows that reaching our goals isn't going to happen unless we find a way to impact the rural poor. And that is my task: find the way to impact the rural poor. I was tapped for the project because while many of our staff are very successful in fundraising with these counties, no one else has ever done what I do in regards to mission within the target population. But first, the boss wants to see if I can make it work in different demographics than the one in which the original project was started.

It's a start. I am but one, and I will do what I can, but I cannot save the world.