what are some of your ideas to make the world better?
please, no goofy answers.

-bioengeneering to increase surplus of food to be distributed to famine stricken corner of the world.

-increase fundamental education to decrease stereotype of race/color/nationality

-respect religion/individual/beliefs if they do no harm to others and individual

-freedom of information with no biased from the people that is feeding it to the people

-vaccination/clean water/globalization of health care/decrease drug abuse (cocaine/etoh/marijuana), increase research into aids/cancer/untreatable disease

-reasearch into space colinization, utilization of raw space materials, research into decreasing environmental stress, utilizing the raw energy of the sun, establishing a unification equation of quatum mechnaics and general relativity

…and that's my plan for a brighter future for humanity

Teaching the children of today that race doesn't matter to avoid a civil war of race in the future.

Wait… you already said that.

The world will begin solving its problems the day people quit taking everything so seriously.

Rich
The world will begin solving its problems the day people quit taking everything so seriously.

So we can laugh off killing someone as a joke? …

I suppose I'm just taking the topic too seriously :)

Although, more humour is a good thing.

Marxist communism would make the world better… Or maybe a benign dictatorship ruled over by me!
Less human population on Earth would be good.
If people were WAY less greedy for resources, that would be great! Just all that air-conditioning alone accounts for a ginormous power consumption! seriously, air-conditioning is one of the world's great problems… Because it's such a high power user, so ubiquitous and assumed to be so necessary when in reality it never is (civilisation has existed thousands of years before its invention in some of the hottest places on the planet.)

People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

Introduce mandatory license testing prior to allowing people to conceive or at least carry a birth to term.

You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to own a gun. But any idiot can have children, and I've seen way too many kids get screwed up by parents who had no business bringing another life into an already overcrowded world.

A

Andrew Foley
Introduce mandatory license testing prior to allowing people to conceive or at least carry a birth to term.

You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to own a gun. But any idiot can have children, and I've seen way too many kids get screwed up by parents who had no business bringing another life into an already overcrowded world.

A

I has a slightly…different variation based on that. Licenses would only be required to raise the child as preventing conception is pretty damn hard, children born to parents who are not licensed to raise them Would be taken care of and educated by the government, and when they reach adulthood they would have the choice to recieve free training and job placment in one of the services run by the state, Hospitals, armed forces, The fire service, the police etc.

This way, not only do said children get a good start in life, but they also get job security, and there is no longer a shortage of trained medical staff, soliders, policemen or firefighters.

psychosocially those kids would not have a balanced upbringing. they still need to be in a family and feeling loved for thier individuality. The government may provide all those things that require them to live, but mentally they would be incomplete.

I think that could be worked around in an at least satisfactory manner, and of course people could always adopt them.

i think there should be more research into better prophalactics. most of the sex that is going on are for pleasure anyways.

ccs1989
People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

The problem with that is that you'll be facing an ageing population where the average age rises and there isn't enough young to support the old. As a result people will have to work longer and longer, and since there might not be enough workers to get things done, there might be shortages on goods and services.

Mark

ccs1989
People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

The problem with that is that you'll be facing an ageing population where the average age rises and there isn't enough young to support the old. As a result people will have to work longer and longer, and since there might not be enough workers to get things done, there might be shortages on goods and services.

Thats basically Canada and Malaysia right now.

this thread is scary

Mark

ccs1989
People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

The problem with that is that you'll be facing an ageing population where the average age rises and there isn't enough young to support the old. As a result people will have to work longer and longer, and since there might not be enough workers to get things done, there might be shortages on goods and services.

That is very True, 4 Child limit with tax penalties if you break it?

ccs1989
People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

Yeah, but what if people accedentially have a third kid? Will the third kid have to die? Would that mean I would be dead by now?

All a child limit leads to is death. Think of the Duggars!

I say the third child gets taken by the government and raised to function as a government worker.

strong414bad
Yeah, but what if people accedentially have a third kid? Will the third kid have to die? Would that mean I would be dead by now?

Alright, so it would work like this:

No penalty for having more than 2 children, however the government doesn't recommend it, and people who only have two children get some money from the government.

And I'm not supporting a lessening of population, but I'm saying that we should work towards keeping the population in check. Countries like Norway who have very small populations have fantastic standards of living compared to countries like India or China.

Tamerlane
this thread is scary

Holy crap am I with you there. This thread is scaring the shit outta me.

Maybe it's just me, but the minute you start talking about children being raised by governments is the minute you start turning people into drones. As soon as governments have the power to ‘raise’ children, what's to stop them brainwashing them? I can only sincerely hope that you were joking with that statement. I also believe that nobody in this world has any right to tell anyone else if they are or are not allowed to reproduce. I admit that in countries such as China where population is growing out of control, limits are a sensible thing. But even in China we see examples that it has gone too far, with people killing/aborting female children etc. Besides this, it has created huge problems for families who have more than one child. It creates problems for the other child/children. Overall I just don't see it as a good thing for many people.

The way I see it, population is not even one of the biggest problems the world is facing today. The fact is that too many countries are wasting their money, mainly on war. The best thing I can think of that would make the world a better place to live right now, would be to renounce war. That way, many governments would be able to focus on doing things to improve the conditions in their countries, and could in turn improve conditions in other countries.

You know what the world needs?

Thousands upon thousands of incredibly large, incredibly powerful radiotelescopes constantly listening to space. Because SETI just isn't listening hard enough.

I reckon they should build a big space ship, like the starship enterprise. And put about 1,000 people on it, and just catapult it off into space. It could be nuclear powered. And have farms and things on it. Only they might run out of cows and meat after a while, so actually it could just be a big colony of vegetarians. Flying around in space.

The way I see it, population is not even one of the biggest problems the world is facing today. The fact is that too many countries are wasting their money, mainly on war. The best thing I can think of that would make the world a better place to live right now, would be to renounce war. That way, many governments would be able to focus on doing things to improve the conditions in their countries, and could in turn improve conditions in other countries.

Problem is war is inevitable. Think of the minor scuffles that happen between people on a daily basis. Now think of that only times 300,000,000 and with lots and lots of weapons. Sure, there's a lot of planning and debating that goes into the decision of going to war, but then base fears and desires come into play and there you go. It'd be nice to have a utopia where nobody ever fought, but that would mean having to standardize the views of everyone to be basically the same and to have extreme amounts of forced education where dissent to the common ideas is not allowed. Basically society would have to give up a lot of it's freedoms to stop going to war. Then there'd probably be revolts and we'd have civil war on our hands.
It'd be nice is everyone could just be rational, but we're not that godly. People have different ideas about what it means to be rational. Some people might think it means standing by what are supposed to be the “facts”. Others believe that the only rational thing to do is to rely on books like the Bible or the Quran. Then there will be other people like Janists who slowly starve themselves to death, being completely opposed to killing any life but not being able to add much to the world.

Conflict is the basis of all change, and conflict on a large scale turns into war.

don't put morons as leaders of countries

strong414bad

ccs1989
People having two kids maximum so that the population remains about the same, but gradually it decreases.

Yeah, but what if people accedentially have a third kid? Will the third kid have to die? Would that mean I would be dead by now?

All a child limit leads to is death. Think of the Duggars!

Well, from what I heard, when this happens in China, the kid is usually
a. abandoned, sometimes in an orphanage or on the street
b. never declared to the government, so the kid doesn't legally exist but leads an otherwise normalish life
c. If the kid is born into a rich family, the parents pay a hefty fine to legally keep their kid

Wow, and this thread has not spontaneously combusted. That's pretty darn neat.

So, making the world a better place. I think I've got a magic wand around here somewhere…

1) Elimate fundamentalism – including islamism, christianism, or any of your other religious isms. I'd actually work very hard to eliminate the idea of any kind of paradise/punnishment system in an alleged afterlife since it seems to be a source of contention between cultures and makes people do bad things in this life and think there is some sort of vindication in the next.

You eliminate fundamentalism with critical thinking, which can be taught. You cannot completely eliminate it, which in the long run is a good thing because you'll get your occasional Michaelangelo while your Spanish Inquisitions and Crusades get *drastically* reduced.

2) I would cut back on the use of fossil fuel fertilizers. We're going to run out anyway. I'm reasonably convinced the problem with feeding everyone in the world is not a problem of generation but distribution. The homeless in the USA don't have a problem getting calories, they have a problem getting nutrition. It seems weird to see someone who is overweight but malnourished, but its actually pretty common.

One of the main reasons we can generate so many calories is because of fossil fuel fertilizers. When we run out of oil (possibly in my lifetime, maybe not, but only a scant few people think oil is truly limitless) the world population will suffer a *staggering* setback. Better to cut back slowly rather than crash down.

3) Devote less money to militaries and more money to arts. Every country could do this, and should. We don't need a world of Spartas

4) Not to carp too hard on religion, but come up with a better end game than Armageddon. Its like they've all set up the idea that this life doesn't matter because we need a huge war to make it all mean something.

5) Did I mention to make sufferage universal? I mean to make my world better, I want all women to be able to vote, get a job, drive a car, and control their own reproduction. I think the world would be a better place of 50% of its population wasn't actively oppressed. See, I also think if women had a place in societies that didn't seem to center around making babies, they wouldn't make so many darn babies. Just a thought.

Anyway, just a short laundry list.

there were times when it almost did…

I also think there are some relevancy on having a low emmission vehicle, but GM and other big car companies as well as oil companies won't let it happen…not without a fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/cIwYwAQ8juI

I'll admit I'm a little concerned about global warming.
I was thinking of taking those Ionic Breeze products from the commercials
Like http://www.sharperimage.com/us/en/landpage/proplus.jhtml but instead have it in a shape that could fit on a muffler. Eventually it'd be required by law to have those on your mufflers and eventually they would be placed on smoke stacks.

I think people should stop caring about image so much. (You know, the idea of image, not the comic company.)

Image is something that people stress too much about. What does image really tell about a person? I'm not just talking about facial features either, although what one looks like is something one's born with, and therefore less importance should be put on what a person can't control. But also consider cars. I'm sure if people stopped worrying about awesome their car looked we could do a lot more to save the environment and vehicles could be built safer with much better gas mileage.

By and large I think that minimizing the importance of image in our society could cause nothing but positive effects. People could be valued on the basis of their views and ideas instead of their outward appearance, and politics wouldn't be so biased. It would really change the world for the better.

You just say that because you're fugly. Listen to yourself man! If you had your way the entire planet would be covered in fugly!

Jeeez ccs, I though you were cool… -_-
———————————————-

But seriously, it's nice when things look good and work well. When I buy things for my house they have to posses both of those qualities. It's no use surrounding yourself with ugly stuff just because it works OK, or pretty stuff that's really just a pile of crap; it needs to be both pretty and good quality. Keep the world pretty and efficient, that way people are happier to live in it. That's why no one much liked East Germany even when it was efficient. UGG-LEE!

-you have a good point CCS, but you know how much I love to argue.

lots of feelings go into the answers I see here… but little logic…

As for “bioengineering for more food”… we already have enough food to feed everyone, MORE then enough, some estimates say the US alone produces enough to feed the entire world. The problem is ALOT of food goes to waste (rots in the fields) becuase there is no way to transport it from point a to point b. Transporting it requires vehicles (that have to be repaired and replaced as they break), people to load and unload the food, containers to carry it in, buildings to store it and distribute it, fuel to power those vehicles, and so on. You want to solve food shortage, you work on a better transportation system.

Besides, most places that suffer from hunger GET enough food, they just don't distribute it properly, its usually taken by corrupt groups or governments, distributed for high prices, and the excess destroyed rather then given to people.

stem cell research into organ replacement or some alternative.

More people will not have to suffer because they can have an organ created from thier own DNA, which means they will have a decrease chance of having an adverse reaction to the organ. also means they probably will not have to take immunosuppressive drugs to keep thier own body from attacking the new organ.