Thread: It could be a better world. If we learn to love each other.

Originally Posted by kyrk

totally agree

Two word replies are not welcome in this section.

What can we do? Well I believe two responsibilities, the first is very much private and on a personal level, it´s about how we treat our family members, friends and comrades. The other responsbility has to do with our leaders, and has a lot to do with politics. Like as we have a resposibilty to treat our love ones kindly, its our responsbility to push our politicans and leaders in desireable way. We can not be passive if our governments acts stupidly, we can not sit at our homes while our leaders starts pointless wars offshore. We mus act! Otherwise as Harold Pinter did put it, "We have lost our human dignity".

Lets be peaceful for real

I'm gonna start another thread on this theory but I feel that we, as humans, we never be able to achieve a utopic society. Men, no matter what creed or race, will find a way to gain power of other men/woman by the means of force. Now they shall fall as well but human society is a cyclical rise and fall of cities of power, no matter how fast the communication will be travelling.

Originally Posted by NinjaKet

To say animals aren't cruel isn't true. For torture, observe how a cat toys with a mouse before eventually killing it. For enslavement, look at the leaf-cutter ants who are all enslaved for the Queen Ant and for its purpose. For class structure, rich and poor, check out the Japanese macaque/ nihonzaru / snow monkey or whatever its called now. These territorial primates live in extremely cold conditions, but have access to hot water pools as well. But they've developed some form of grouping in which by only the "selected" allowed in, and a "keeper" enforces the law to ensure not any old monkey can enter the pond. Animals also attack each other, just because they simply believe they might be at risk, not just when they're hungry, which means "unjustified killings" do occur. [...]

You are applying human schemata of thinking to totally different species not only of mammals, but even to insects. Ants and bees, for instance, are not considered individuals by experts, but in their totality. As for the mammals, attacking out of fear or to occupy a territory with sufficient prey for the offspring are valid reasons. And so on, and so on, not really worth dissecting all the implicit premises and myopic conclusions that stem from a lack of theoretical foundation as well as from an obvious lack of practical experience in the field. Breeding, raising, rescuing and dealing with animals is a very satisfactory and fulfilling task that cannot be recommended enough to acquire knowledge and wisdom, more than nearly anything one can buy with all the money that we sacrifice and neglect so many things for in life.

Let's just agree to disagree on those issues as this is not a forum dedicated to the study of animal behaviour. As for not being able to sustain human overpopulation for much longer, that date is nearer than we would like. In March, there was a conference in ... London (?) ... about feeding the ever-increasing human masses with insects, because there is not enough space to grow the quantities of crops that are necessary to raise the chicken, pigs, sheep and cows to supply the necessary amounts of protein, nor to dump their excrements. More people need more clothes, energy, water, places to live and streets to commute, produce waste and heat, etc. What this means for other species and their habitats is obvious: all big cat species are expected to be extinct in the wild by 2020, rhinos by 2030-40, elephants by 2050, etc. By 2100, all big animals will be gone, prey and predators alike.

This has nothing to do with evolving and adapting, but is simply genocide. Of course equilibrium and balance exist, as can be seen historically as well as actually by looking at those regions where humans do not interfere with the natural cause of things. Yes, species have disappeared before, but not even after major natural or cosmical disasters have they disappeared in such a brief span of time as 200 years. Moreover, one species becoming extinct normally gives way to others emerging and evolving, because in an intact natural environment, no niche remains unoccupied for long. What we are doing, however, is killing off all other life forms -- plants, insects, fish and mammals -- within a few decades if they do not suit us commercially or emotionally (pets). That is no natural course of things, it is the arrogance and ignorance of the monotheistic mindset that followed/merged with the Mediterranean cultures focused on exploiting and conquering others. Nowadays, due to imperialism and colonization mostly by Christianity, that mindset has become global, with businessmen all over the world wearing the western uniform of suit and tie in a globalized economy. The trade laws and treaties force every country to play the same game of exploitation and "growth", but if we think about it for a moment: how could unlimited growth on a very limited little ball in the universe be possible without finding a balance between production, use and recycling?

This mentality of greed and ignorance has not always been the same in all regions and with all people. First of all, people today do on average not know more than they did a couple thousand years ago, they merely know different things. Think of horse breeding and horse riding vs. driving cars as an example. Before becoming part of the British Empire, l'Empire Français and so on, the tribes in Africa and North America did live in a way that did not endanger the environment they lived in. In South America, some nations even integrated the reduction of overpopulation into their religion in order to justify mass slaughtering: the Mexica (Aztecs) and their flower wars were battles that had no real other purpose than decreasing the number of hungry mouths (even if sometimes politicians would combine political ambitions with them). Other South American nations who did not realize the connection between overpopulation, draught and famine disappeared. It is one of the many unfortunate coincidences of history and psychology that the more peaceful, balanced, wise cultures do not stand a chance against the more aggressive nations with better weapons. Whether that is a positive evolution remains to be seen, because all our aggression against the very base of our survival might bite us in the ... pretty soon.

There is a water plant that covers the surface of still water bodies, thereby causing all other life beneath it to ultimately die, due to a lack of sunlight, surface access and oxygen. This plant doubles in size every 24 hours, usually beginning in very small patches here and there. What is the most dangerous part of all this? Why isn't it cut back in time? Because on the day before it is too late, half the lake is still free and so nobody realizes the urgency of the problem.

We are doing the same with the really important issues that have a long term impact but urgently need a solution. We know about the loss of habitats, we know about endangered species, we know that there wouldn't be enough oxygen around the planet if the Chinese or Indians had as many cars per capita as the Americans, we know there isn't enough space, energy, food and water for doubling the world's population yet another time. Nevertheless, we get distracted by currency crisis, sports events and scandals as irrelevant as a politician sleeping with an intern. We do not fix the financial and tax systems that lead to an incredible discrepancy between rich and poor, with the 500 richest people in the world having more than what half the world's population owns. We know that in 20 years, there won't be any oil left, we know that intact ecosystems are necessary to clean up our pollution, and so on, and so on. Isn't it time to finally do something for real, instead of wasting billions on lip service like conferences, reunions, summits and all the other forms of procrastinating that we celebrate, just so we do not have to tackle the world's no.1 fundamental cause behind most ecological, economical, political and social problems: human overpopulation.

China is the only country that had the courage to implement a 1 child policy, although their culture worships procreation, because they realized it was the only way to prevent a catastrophe and to get up on their feet on the economical and political world stage. Apart from the Chinese, only animals know how to balance their numbers -- it's not cruel, it is necessary common sense and consequence. When will we learn what they know?


.

I really like your post QuiPeccavit, but I just want to say that it really helps if you quote the post (or mention the poster) you're replying to. Your post was a bit confusing at first.
That said, yes, overpopulation is one of the biggest problems human civilization has to face today, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately no-one seems to have the political courage to take action or to even talk about it for the simple reason that unlimited procreation is still perceived as a human right and that it's politically correct and strategically clever to defend what the vast majority consider their human right. Also, a considerable amount of people still think of a child as a gift from God and fervently believe that He alone can decide where human life is concerned. The Catholic Church still officially condemns contraceptives. I have to admit that I sometimes lose faith in the human race and its supposed rational superiority. People just tend to tenaciously cling to the most ridiculous beliefs and in this relativistic age, everyone feels entitled to their own ideas, no matter how foolish those ideas may be. I always thought that the reason for that is that basically we're just animals trying to survive in a hostile environment, but maybe you're right in pointing out that animals are far wiser than humans in this respect. I still like to think however that the solution resides in our rationality. So if we want to turn the tide, I think it all starts with proper education. Only then can rationally inferior belief systems be stamped out. However, the sad truth is that naive relativism and unquestioning multiculturalism proliferate and that education is turning into a massive consumer-oriented business in which students are more and more turning into the standard shallow products of a factory driven by short-term profit. All we can do is fight and hope that consciousness-raising may have some effect. Time is running out though.