So, being slightly mad...

[2ndRateMind]

...I have a slightly mad idea.

Why don't we all put aside our theological and political differences, and just get on with saving the world?

I define that as eradicating global human absolute* poverty, while simultaneously living within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet earth.

I would contend, for those concerned primarily about their afterlife prospects, that those willing to make the necessary sacrifices to achieve these ends are inevitably befitting themselves for heaven.

That's it in a nutshell; by saving the world, we save ourselves.

So, how do we do it? Suggestions welcome.

Best wishes, 2RM

*absolute poverty; being so poor one cannot support one's own life and/or that of one's family. It is distinct from relative poverty, which is being so poor one cannot afford the holidays one's neighbour can.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

By political, I presume you mean partisan. Politics is how one chooses to do things and that is what you are asking for.

First, one needs to get a buy in to your singular goal: "I define that as eradicating global human absolute* poverty, while simultaneously living within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet earth." That is a rather peculiar goal, not that it is not stated at coffee shop in first world countries. In my experience, it just is not something people use to guide their daily lives.

Second, one needs to flesh out the two tenets of this goal

1. "absolute poverty; being so poor one cannot support one's own life and/or that of one's family. It is distinct from relative poverty, which is being so poor one cannot afford the holidays one's neighbour can."

If we are truly talking about absolute poverty, then you are calling for an economy where no one, or any of those that they consider family, dies. This is a tall order to say the least, even if one buys in to it. What you call "relative poverty" is so general it provides no clarity. If you mean comparative poverty, that would be clearer, but since you wish us to focus on absolute poverty, it might be best to focus on that.

2. "living within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet earth"

One would first have to determine what one means by "carrying capacity" and what that capacity is. For example, is it the capacity with everyone living at subsistence level, or is it the capacity that supports a certain degree of first world amenities.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

By political, I presume you mean partisan. Politics is how one chooses to do things and that is what you are asking for.

First, one needs to get a buy in to your singular goal: "I define that as eradicating global human absolute* poverty, while simultaneously living within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet earth." That is a rather peculiar goal, not that it is not stated at coffee shop in first world countries. In my experience, it just is not something people use to guide their daily lives.

Second, one needs to flesh out the two tenets of this goal

1. "absolute poverty; being so poor one cannot support one's own life and/or that of one's family. It is distinct from relative poverty, which is being so poor one cannot afford the holidays one's neighbour can."

If we are truly talking about absolute poverty, then you are calling for an economy where no one, or any of those that they consider family, dies. This is a tall order to say the least, even if one buys in to it. What you call "relative poverty" is so general it provides no clarity. If you mean comparative poverty, that would be clearer, but since you wish us to focus on absolute poverty, it might be best to focus on that.

2. "living within the ecological carrying capacity of the planet earth"

One would first have to determine what one means by "carrying capacity" and what that capacity is. For example, is it the capacity with everyone living at subsistence level, or is it the capacity that supports a certain degree of first world amenities.

All good points. I have my own opinions, but before I state them, I would be more than happy for others to make their own comments.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Because in my personal opinion, we cannot successfully solve our problems ourselves.

It reminds me of the illustration:

A man buys some material and goes to his taylor, for him to make him a suit. The taylor measures him up and makes the suit. When the man returns he finds the suit is terrible, doesn't fit, badly sewn... when the man complains the taylor says the problem is with the material.

The man concedes and buys different material and takes it back tot he same taylor. When he returns, there is another suit, but it is stll bad, lop sided, shoddy, falling apart. The taylor says again, that the material was not right. Again and again the process is repeated. At what point does the customer conclude it's not the material its the taylor?

Humans have tried everything, every form of government, every form of social structure, we have thousands of years of human history - no matter how good the intentions, the problems persist. Greed prevails, power exploits, corruption raises to the top like oil on water, and oppression, global degredation continues despite having the technology and apparently the collective intelligence to do better.

At what point do we face reality and conclude, humans are simply not capable without outside help, of solving their own problems?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by 2ndRateMind]

Because in my personal opinion, we cannot successfully solve our problems ourselves.

Yet it seems that the gods only seem to help those that help themselves. There is a reason for the saying "Faith without works is dead".

Where you would credit a god, I would acknowledge the works of a human.

Humans have tried everything, every form of government, every form of social structure, we have thousands of years of human history - no matter how good the intentions, the problems persist. Greed prevails, power exploits, corruption raises to the top like oil on water, and oppression, global degredation continues despite having the technology and apparently the collective intelligence to do better.

Humans are not perfect animals. Most acknowledge this, some like to blame a talking snake in a garden. These would be the people that think a god is necessary since they are convinced that us humans are sick. Whatever flavor of religion they find, will be considered the cure.
'You wont buy the medicine if you are not first convinced that you are sick'.

At what point do we face reality and conclude, humans are simply not capable without outside help, of solving their own problems?

What a sad outlook on life. Ever consider that things are not as terrible as your religion tells you?
The average life expectancy of a human is over what, 70 years old now? Let's ignore the positives though and focus on the negative. Gotta stay sick...

[2ndRateMind]

As the OP asked, I am really looking for solutions, not problems. Religion in general, and Christianity in particular, may have a net negative or net positive political and social impact. But that is an argument for another thread. I would so appreciate input around the good things that are being done, and good things that are being left undone, if for no other reason than edification and general awareness.

Thanks and best wishes, 2RM.