As a tentative first step...

[2ndRateMind]

...It might help if we agreed what these problems are!

This thread is for you to suggest what such problems might be. By all means also suggest your preferred solution, or methodology to arrive at such a solution.

As a starter, I would suggest that the world needs to eradicate absolute poverty, among all of humanity, while still remaining comfortably within the global ecological carrying capacity. If we can provide everyone with a comfortable living, the incentive for war and strife is much reduced. And if we can do that while still conserving the wild world, which is our inheritance of billions of years of evolution, so much the better. So, for me, saving the world is an optimising thing, rather than a maximising thing.

But, doubtless, you all have priorities of your own. Please feel free to share them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Purple Knight]

As might be said of where we are trying to get to. If we can't agree on that, further investigation and recommendations are useless.

There are really only two positions on this.

Half of us want a fair world; everyone is bound by the same standards, if he gets to do it, so do I. If I don't get to do it, neither does he.

Half of us want a moral world. In a moral world it doesn't really matter what's fair. My stuff is his, because charity. His stuff is not mine, because property.

The latter sort of person is clearly the higher and I hope to one day become one.

[2ndRateMind]

As might be said of where we are trying to get to. If we can't agree on that, further investigation and recommendations are useless.

There are really only two positions on this.

Half of us want a fair world; everyone is bound by the same standards, if he gets to do it, so do I. If I don't get to do it, neither does he.

Half of us want a moral world. In a moral world it doesn't really matter what's fair. My stuff is his, because charity. His stuff is not mine, because property.

The latter sort of person is clearly the higher and I hope to one day become one.

Can we agree on a compromise? An equitable world? Where doctors, say, are paid more than road-sweepers, due to the difficulty of their job, and the amount of time they have dedicated to the necessary education. But even subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, or day labourers in Latin America, or textile workers in Asia, are never in danger of hunger, malnutrition and starvation? I would settle for that.

Best wishes, 2RM

[nobspeople]

...It might help if we agreed what these problems are!

This thread is for you to suggest what such problems might be. By all means also suggest your preferred solution, or methodology to arrive at such a solution.

As a starter, I would suggest that the world needs to eradicate absolute poverty, among all of humanity, while still remaining comfortably within the global ecological carrying capacity. If we can provide everyone with a comfortable living, the incentive for war and strife is much reduced. And if we can do that while still conserving the wild world, which is our inheritance of billions of years of evolution, so much the better. So, for me, saving the world is an optimising thing, rather than a maximising thing.

But, doubtless, you all have priorities of your own. Please feel free to share them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I think the world needs to slow down with the population of people.
If I could, I'd mandate the following:
1) License to reproduce (as a litmus, if you're a prime Jerry Springer guest, no kiddos for you!)
2) No more than 1 off spring per person for 3-4 generations
3) Forced sterilization afterwards offspring limit has been reached