I was torn between either climate change, poverty, or inequality, but ultimately chose poverty because the problem with inequality is that it leaves many people in poverty and the problem with climate change is that it threatens to plunge most if not all of humanity into poverty (because all wealth ultimately comes from the bounty of nature).
I voted climate change, but if I had two choices over-population would have been #2.
Mapping the MediumJanuary 05, 2020 at 09:51#3686640 likes
I voted climate change, but would have voted 'nominalism' if it was on the list. I believe it to be the root cause of most of those problems.
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2020 at 11:08#3686820 likes
I voted political corruption, because without the ability of humanity to act in its own best interests, none of the merely practical problems can even be addressed properly. Physical problems are trivial, it is psychological problems that are intractable.
Deleted UserJanuary 05, 2020 at 14:30#3686970 likes
Reply to Xtrix I voted political corruption, by which I mean not just occasional bribes, but the way the powers that be serve elite interests and not 'the people'. This leads to many of the other problems on the list. And many problems not on the list. In my version of 'corruption' one can be utterly corrupt and not break a single law.
SophistiCatJanuary 05, 2020 at 15:10#3687060 likes
I was torn between either climate change, poverty, or inequality, but ultimately chose poverty because the problem with inequality is that it leaves many people in poverty and the problem with climate change is that it threatens to plunge most if not all of humanity into poverty (because all wealth ultimately comes from the bounty of nature).
I am afraid the "poverty" here stands in for the opposite of thriving or happiness, making the choice rather trivial and non-specific.
I voted political corruption, because without the ability of humanity to act in its own best interests, none of the merely practical problems can even be addressed properly. Physical problems are trivial, it is psychological problems that are intractable.
I think you rather idealize "humanity," much in the way romantics idealized "the people" (as if there was such a thing).
Overpopulation. The result of Poverty (which is driven by Inequality made intractable by Political Corruption). Also, a significant driver of Climate Change (which drives the rise in Epidemics). When automation really bites rendering increasing shares of the masses 'surplus people', Terrorism and War (with or without WMDs such as Nuclear & Bio weapons) will become even more virulent than they are currently - the latter even a preferred military-industrial-national-security policy for "thinning the herds" by malignant elites (ensconced in their Climate Change-"proofed" hardened bunkers on private / artificial islands, or mountain redoubts, or accessible-only-by-aircraft "self-sustaining" compounds).
I'm surprised at the choices, isn't it obvious that climate change is the most pressing, after all with our current population and with many governments with high levels of transparency and integrity(although I accept this count is currently falling), we are still producing so much pollution that we will soon die out from the pollution of our environment. All the other problems will be solved or reset soon anyway by this.
If somehow we can pull together and mitigate the worst excesses of climate change, we may begin to see the way forward, or at least have another go.
More importantly, if we don't address it now, we may be reduced to a primitive Stone Age way of life setting us back over 10,000 years from our 21st Century level of development. Or worse, become extinct, leaving the batton of civilisation to some other animal which survives us.
unenlightenedJanuary 05, 2020 at 18:13#3687320 likes
I think you rather idealize "humanity," much in the way romantics idealized "the people" (as if there was such a thing).
Au contraire, I diagnose humanity as the source of the non-ideal and of all the other problems. Thus for example humanity is as real as human caused global warming and what humans do, they can stop doing. So global warming is a simple problem to solve and most of the research work has been done already by folks who care about such stuff. Simple enough to convince almost everyone to do what is necessary, except - governments are corrupt and do not act in our interests. Similarly, nuclear weapons are an easily solved problem - dismantle them and don't make any more. It is the collective madness of government that prevents it.
I voted political corruption, by which I mean not just occasional bribes, but the way the powers that be serve elite interests and not 'the people'. This leads to many of the other problems on the list. And many problems not on the list. In my version of 'corruption' one can be utterly corrupt and not break a single law.
I voted climate change, but if I had two choices over-population would have been #2.
Likewise -- although I'm a little less certain about overpopulation these days. I would put nuclear weapons as second. It's still a much bigger threat than most people realize, even with the end of the Cold War.
I'm surprised at the choices, isn't it obvious that climate change is the most pressing,
I'm a bit surprised as well, although people have given good reasons for the other choices.
I would say climate change is the most urgent problem we face currently, but it's certainly connected to overpopulation and political corruption. Again, my biggest surprise is only one vote (so far) for nuclear weapons.
To wit: If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor.Only asingularitycan save us.
Very interesting so far. I would have expected nuclear weapons to come up higher!
Nuclear bombs could be the end of all our problems, so it's hard to rate it.
I voted for Climate Change, and would liked to have chosen overpopulation as well -- not as #2, but as a draw with global warming.
Political corruption smells bad, is ugly, causes other serious problems, kills people, and so on -- but corruption just goes with the human territory. Like fresh fish, we spoil quickly.
Inequality and poverty? Endemic. Epidemics? See overpopulation. Biological weapons? Are they worse than nuclear weapons? Terrorism? Nah. Bad people do bad stuff. Calling it terrorism doesn't make it worse, really. War? "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne said during WWI. He wasn't recommending war, btw.
You've heard of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse... Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death?
I'll toss in my two cents that this is a beautiful list of first world problems. Back in the day, and in many places in the world today, finding food and water to get through the next 24 hours was and is the most pressing problem. That it never crossed your mind is a sign of just how far we've come and how privileged in time and space we are. 790 million people currently don't have access to running water. THAT"s a problem, my friend. A problem that you don't have. Count your blessings.
I also want to note to the overpopulation crowd that the actual biggest populate-related problem is UNDER-population. The Western world is not reproducing at a replacement rate and hasn't been for decades. There won't be enough workers to support the ever-aging population.
This isn't the place for this discussion, but if you Google around you'll easily find many articles explaining this point of view. That there aren't enough people being born to sustain our way of life. It's underpopulation and NOT overpopulation that's the problem.
But like I say, when we lived in caves we didn't worry about how many cave people there would be in fifty years. We were just hoping a nice meaty mastodon would wander by so we could spear it for dinner. Ogg a few caves down has this "fire" stuff so we don't have to eat raw mastodon meat anymore. I'm sick of raw mastodon meat.
Now THOSE are problems. Worrying about crap you read in the mainstream media is a fool's game. I suggest that in the new year we all try to focus on what's real and what's merely illusion.
Now THOSE are problems. Worrying about crap you read in the mainstream media is a fool's game. I suggest that in the new year we all try to focus on what's real and what's merely illusion.
So climate change and nuclear weapons are mainstream media illusions, and the “real” problems are that many people can’t eat or find clean water.
Always glad to see substantive argument on the Philosophy Forum. Socrates watches with admiration and approval from his place in the pantheon of philosophy, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." You know so much, and the rest of us so little.
You need to get your head out of your daily diet of media hysteria.
Reply to Xtrix Nuclear weapons are mostly bad because of the climate change they would effect, which is in turn bad because of the poverty it would cause.
I would like to get a sense of what most people on here believe is the most important problem facing humanity today.
You know it's funny. I quoted the exact words you used to start this thread. Taking you at your word, I gave you my opinion.
Now you might have said, "Well that's not what I was expecting but thanks for contributing your opinion."
Instead, you seem emotionally triggered by the fact that I dared to express an opinion you don't hold. And not that unusual of an opinion. Read your Chomsky. "Manufacturing consent." Read McLuhan on media. He predicted all of this decades ago. Much of what you think and believe is a function of what you read in the media. Check who owns the media. Do I really need to explain this stuff to people? You think the media are selfless public servants and nobody has an agenda?
And did I really say I don't believe in ... well whatever cause is near and dear to your heart? No. I only pointed out that most people in the developed West have no idea what a problem is. Don't know if you've noticed, but there's a worldwide revolt against the elite who think they know better but actually don't know anything at all.
The main thing is that you said you wanted opinions; but when presented with one, you retreated into anger and derision. I think you must be what they call a snowflake. Terrified of hearing an opinion you don't like.
You didn't include AI in the list. Some people believe it is the one big existential problem just over the horizon we need to figure out, because it's likely to be out of our hands once we achieve AGI, and it quickly bootstraps itself to super intelligence.
I'm not sure about the prospects for AGI, the singularity and super intelligence, but I can't discount it either. It should be included in the list, because it's potentially a big game changer. One that could replace humans as the driving force behind civilization.
For the skeptical, keep in mind that some of the poll options such as nukes, bio-weapons and climate change are the result of technological progress, so we'd be foolish to think they were the last threats we create. Nanotech is another potential future one, if it's weaponized. Gene editing could also possibly be used as a weapon.
True- not meant as an exhaustive list, of course. Just off the top of my head. But you’re right, that could be a big problem - or a blessing. It’s hard to know at this point.
Reply to Xtrix Goatcha. I voted climate change, because global poverty is on the way down, but serious enough changes to the climate could easily reverse that trend.
I would say climate change is the most urgent problem we face currently, but it's certainly connected to overpopulation and political corruption. Again, my biggest surprise is only one vote (so far) for nuclear weapons
Yes, if the issue of urgency is key in this vote, it is obviously climate change, because it is existential and the scientists say we need to tackle it now, to avert this existential crisis.
Reply to fishfry The pole is in reference to the most important problem facing humanity. There are many problems, it's more about what is the most important of them for the race as a whole.
I know there are many people struggling to find food and water in a chaotic world, but this is not an important problem for the survival of humanity as a whole, whereas there are other problems which could jeopardise the survival of humanity.
I like sushiJanuary 06, 2020 at 07:34#3689980 likes
It has been shown relatively clearly that once people are raised above the poverty line everything else tends to get much better (all of the above although carbon emissions tend to rise with economic development - and it is up to the ‘leading’ economic nations to provide economically viable alternatives for rising nations asap). In the short term I am not pretending that mere ‘wealth’ solves any issues involving environmental pollution. It is reasonably obvious that if you’re starving, struggling to make ends meet or occupied with paying for education, that more wide reaching problems are of little to no direct concern.
Once the vast majority of people on Earth have a reasonable degree of financial stability they will acquire better education and have more immediate concerns regarding other problems.
In the short term I am not pretending that mere ‘wealth’ solves any issues involving environmental pollution.
I was thinking of it more the other way around: environmental problems are detrimental to wealth. Everybody has reason to care about the environment for their personal dependency on it for their wealth and well-being. People who are wealthy already are the ones with the power to do something about it, and also the ones with the most to lose long term. So, for the sake of their own wealth if nothing else, they really ought to be paying attention to the problem, or else they're going to end up as poor as everyone else when everything that they depend on for their comfortable lives collapses.
I like sushiJanuary 06, 2020 at 09:04#3690150 likes
Reply to Pfhorrest Show me a starving family who cares about anything other than finding food.
People who are wealthy already are the ones with the power to do something about it, and also the ones with the most to lose long term.
Some do. You’re wealthy and you care, don’t you? If you were trying to scrape by on a dollar a day and making choices between child A or B getting an education would you honestly sacrifice that choice for the world at large. I doubt it.
The point being you’re in a position to care and act, and people in poverty are not - and make no mistake you’re ‘wealthy’! (You’ve had an education, food on the table and no doubt have a reasonable access to monetary funds via employment opportunities others would, and do, literally die for - hence migration that carries mortal dangers).
A huge problem is the manner in which funds are allocated toward areas that have little impact upon the problems at hand. In many areas simply pumping money into it does little to no good at all. The idea that money solves all problems is silly, but ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ are not necessarily all about ‘money’. It is simply a question of ‘opportunity’ in regards to ‘wealth’/‘poverty’ - $100 in one country will go much further than in another.
If you look at schemes set up by people like Bill Gates you can see that they’ve learnt that when it comes to extremely important matters (ie. education) it is not solved by pumping money into education, as what matter FAR more is the teacher’s attitudes and passion.
So, for the sake of their own wealth if nothing else, they really ought to be paying attention to the problem, or else they're going to end up as poor as everyone else when everything that they depend on for their comfortable lives collapses.
Yeah, but we’re talking about a minority here and, as mentioned, people like yourself do care and the problems exists because not everyone in a position to do something know/care enough to do so. The poor don’t have a rational option/opportunity to live any differently.
Deleted UserJanuary 06, 2020 at 13:53#3690450 likes
Yes, I think AI, gm, nanotech and bioweapons should be on the list.
I like sushiJanuary 06, 2020 at 14:11#3690500 likes
Reply to Coben Technically wouldn’t that fall under political corruption? I guess there is a crossover though, so it probably does need an extra category - I think it’s an ‘immediate’ problem in terms of Terminator-like proportions, but it’s already an issue in the political sphere.
SophistiCatJanuary 06, 2020 at 14:45#3690540 likes
I would like to get a sense of what most people on here believe is the most important problem facing humanity today.
It is not clear what this question is asking. One way to read the question might be "What produces the most suffering for the most people now and in perpetuity?" Poverty would be a good answer, but so would death and disease, which are absent from the list. Moreover, it is not clear how granular and how proximate the answer ought to be. Poverty, for example, is a very general condition and a sink for most of the other listed issues. For example, corruption in the end produces poverty (as well as death and disease) by way of suboptimal governance.
The point of this question, which lists a hodgepodge of enduring conditions and potential threats, is also unclear. So let's say we pick one more or less general problem and wish it away. Then what?
ChatteringMonkeyJanuary 06, 2020 at 15:16#3690580 likes
I voted inequality because in concert with new technologies it threatens to deny large parts of the population a meaningful existence.
EDIT: And I will add that this is an answer to the specific question of what problem is in most need of adressing. Climate change needs to be adressed too for instance, but I don't think it is that pressing... because the really bad effects will only start to happen in a couple of decades. And I don't think we have any idea what the world and technology will be like in a couple of decades. Solutions to climate change could be a walk in the park then, whereas now we could spend billions and not even put a dent into the problem.
If technology will explode like it think it will, then I think inequality will cause a giant crisis long before climate causes anyway near the same damage.
Another justification is (and I've could've gone with corruption here too for that reason) that we can only adress problems if we have enough agency, as a species. Things that threathen that agency, also threaten the solution of other big problems.
The point of this question, which lists a hodgepodge of enduring conditions and potential threats, is also unclear.
No it isn't. Maybe to you -- although I doubt you're being sincere -- but not to anyone else. The point was stated in the post: I'm interested to get a sense of what people would choose, if they had to. Of course I could write a thousand different qualifications and include a thousand other problems -- that goes without saying, but I was assuming we're all adults.
There's always at least one person who wants to play Socrates and claim fake confusion. So boring. Nonetheless, if something as clear and straightforward as this is really that confusing to you, feel free to simply ignore it and go on your merry way.
SophistiCatJanuary 06, 2020 at 16:56#3690890 likes
Reply to Xtrix I thought this was intended as a philosophical post, seeing as it was posted on a philosophy board. My mistake, thanks for setting me straight in such a non-insulting and mature way.
Technically wouldn’t that fall under political corruption?
At least, 'also', since I think governments should have oversight and their oversight is often compromised by revolving door stuff and lobbying, if there is any. I am not sure they need their own category in the OP, but I think they should be mentioned. I think the greatest threats are technological. Some of our tech. solutions, may end up being final.
And I see people mentioning technology as a subset of inequality. Inequality is a serious problem, but it is not final one.
I like sushiJanuary 06, 2020 at 17:18#3691050 likes
I'm thinking lack of (or poor) education is a factor.
We know that educated women have less children, for example, so it's a factor in overpopulation in some way.
Someone quite literally told me the other day that, if they broke a leg, they wouldn't head off to the doctor/clinic, "I'm good thanks".
My impression is that they'd just ask Jesus, something like that.
It was just an example; I guess poor education might work both ways.
Jackson HanfordJanuary 06, 2020 at 19:21#3691470 likes
Reply to Xtrix I voted political corruption because a lot of the problems listed could be caused by it. For example, nuclear weapons are misused under corrupt political leaders (although it is debated if there is a correct use for them at all) and corrupt politicians can also plunge us into poverty and start dangerous wars. Miscommunication is also one of the main causes of war in my opinion. When everyone is telling you a different truth, it is difficult to come to your own conclusion as you can often unconsciously take their view into consideration. If poor upkeep of heavily populated areas is contributed to by political leaders, it can lead to epidemics. I think terrorism will always be there, in some way or another, although I am continuing to theorize about that. It seems that the best leaders are the ones that do not desire to be in a position of power in the first place. Either way, after humanity decides on one way to destroy our existence, the world moves on, the sun will always rise and set, and the Earth will meet its end, as all living things do.
Comments (49)
I am afraid the "poverty" here stands in for the opposite of thriving or happiness, making the choice rather trivial and non-specific.
Quoting unenlightened
I think you rather idealize "humanity," much in the way romantics idealized "the people" (as if there was such a thing).
Vanity.
If somehow we can pull together and mitigate the worst excesses of climate change, we may begin to see the way forward, or at least have another go.
More importantly, if we don't address it now, we may be reduced to a primitive Stone Age way of life setting us back over 10,000 years from our 21st Century level of development. Or worse, become extinct, leaving the batton of civilisation to some other animal which survives us.
Au contraire, I diagnose humanity as the source of the non-ideal and of all the other problems. Thus for example humanity is as real as human caused global warming and what humans do, they can stop doing. So global warming is a simple problem to solve and most of the research work has been done already by folks who care about such stuff. Simple enough to convince almost everyone to do what is necessary, except - governments are corrupt and do not act in our interests. Similarly, nuclear weapons are an easily solved problem - dismantle them and don't make any more. It is the collective madness of government that prevents it.
Can't necessarily argue with that.
Quoting Wayfarer
Likewise -- although I'm a little less certain about overpopulation these days. I would put nuclear weapons as second. It's still a much bigger threat than most people realize, even with the end of the Cold War.
Quoting Punshhh
I'm a bit surprised as well, although people have given good reasons for the other choices.
I would say climate change is the most urgent problem we face currently, but it's certainly connected to overpopulation and political corruption. Again, my biggest surprise is only one vote (so far) for nuclear weapons.
(c12th mil BCE - c3rd mil CE)
:death: <---- :flower:
Quoting 180 Proof
× Overconsumption. :fire:
To wit: If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a singularity can save us.
:monkey:
I also voted overpopulation; from which the others flow...
Nuclear bombs could be the end of all our problems, so it's hard to rate it.
I voted for Climate Change, and would liked to have chosen overpopulation as well -- not as #2, but as a draw with global warming.
Political corruption smells bad, is ugly, causes other serious problems, kills people, and so on -- but corruption just goes with the human territory. Like fresh fish, we spoil quickly.
Inequality and poverty? Endemic. Epidemics? See overpopulation. Biological weapons? Are they worse than nuclear weapons? Terrorism? Nah. Bad people do bad stuff. Calling it terrorism doesn't make it worse, really. War? "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne said during WWI. He wasn't recommending war, btw.
You've heard of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse... Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death?
I also want to note to the overpopulation crowd that the actual biggest populate-related problem is UNDER-population. The Western world is not reproducing at a replacement rate and hasn't been for decades. There won't be enough workers to support the ever-aging population.
This isn't the place for this discussion, but if you Google around you'll easily find many articles explaining this point of view. That there aren't enough people being born to sustain our way of life. It's underpopulation and NOT overpopulation that's the problem.
But like I say, when we lived in caves we didn't worry about how many cave people there would be in fifty years. We were just hoping a nice meaty mastodon would wander by so we could spear it for dinner. Ogg a few caves down has this "fire" stuff so we don't have to eat raw mastodon meat anymore. I'm sick of raw mastodon meat.
Now THOSE are problems. Worrying about crap you read in the mainstream media is a fool's game. I suggest that in the new year we all try to focus on what's real and what's merely illusion.
So climate change and nuclear weapons are mainstream media illusions, and the “real” problems are that many people can’t eat or find clean water.
What a stupid, stupid position.
Always glad to see substantive argument on the Philosophy Forum. Socrates watches with admiration and approval from his place in the pantheon of philosophy, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." You know so much, and the rest of us so little.
You need to get your head out of your daily diet of media hysteria.
Yes, and be more like you and your ilk— ignoramuses who feel superior believing they have special knowledge. So edgy, so adolescent.
Please substantially tell us and the science community how climate change is “hysteria.” I eagerly await enlightenment.
Also- epidemics, war, etc, effect the third world quite a lot I’d say. But I don’t have access to your very credible, very edgy sources.
Greta. I rest my case.
[Oh boy now I've done it.]
You cracked the case. Good for you.
You know it's funny. I quoted the exact words you used to start this thread. Taking you at your word, I gave you my opinion.
Now you might have said, "Well that's not what I was expecting but thanks for contributing your opinion."
Instead, you seem emotionally triggered by the fact that I dared to express an opinion you don't hold. And not that unusual of an opinion. Read your Chomsky. "Manufacturing consent." Read McLuhan on media. He predicted all of this decades ago. Much of what you think and believe is a function of what you read in the media. Check who owns the media. Do I really need to explain this stuff to people? You think the media are selfless public servants and nobody has an agenda?
And did I really say I don't believe in ... well whatever cause is near and dear to your heart? No. I only pointed out that most people in the developed West have no idea what a problem is. Don't know if you've noticed, but there's a worldwide revolt against the elite who think they know better but actually don't know anything at all.
The main thing is that you said you wanted opinions; but when presented with one, you retreated into anger and derision. I think you must be what they call a snowflake. Terrified of hearing an opinion you don't like.
Climate denier who’s not read a word of Chomsky. Got it.
The funny thing is I never said that. What triggered you? Was it the mastodons? PETA member?
I’m a triggered snowflake, Sean Hannity. There, now go rest easy in your reality.
I'm not sure about the prospects for AGI, the singularity and super intelligence, but I can't discount it either. It should be included in the list, because it's potentially a big game changer. One that could replace humans as the driving force behind civilization.
For the skeptical, keep in mind that some of the poll options such as nukes, bio-weapons and climate change are the result of technological progress, so we'd be foolish to think they were the last threats we create. Nanotech is another potential future one, if it's weaponized. Gene editing could also possibly be used as a weapon.
True- not meant as an exhaustive list, of course. Just off the top of my head. But you’re right, that could be a big problem - or a blessing. It’s hard to know at this point.
Yes, if the issue of urgency is key in this vote, it is obviously climate change, because it is existential and the scientists say we need to tackle it now, to avert this existential crisis.
The other options are not urgent, or existential.
I know there are many people struggling to find food and water in a chaotic world, but this is not an important problem for the survival of humanity as a whole, whereas there are other problems which could jeopardise the survival of humanity.
It has been shown relatively clearly that once people are raised above the poverty line everything else tends to get much better (all of the above although carbon emissions tend to rise with economic development - and it is up to the ‘leading’ economic nations to provide economically viable alternatives for rising nations asap). In the short term I am not pretending that mere ‘wealth’ solves any issues involving environmental pollution. It is reasonably obvious that if you’re starving, struggling to make ends meet or occupied with paying for education, that more wide reaching problems are of little to no direct concern.
Once the vast majority of people on Earth have a reasonable degree of financial stability they will acquire better education and have more immediate concerns regarding other problems.
I was thinking of it more the other way around: environmental problems are detrimental to wealth. Everybody has reason to care about the environment for their personal dependency on it for their wealth and well-being. People who are wealthy already are the ones with the power to do something about it, and also the ones with the most to lose long term. So, for the sake of their own wealth if nothing else, they really ought to be paying attention to the problem, or else they're going to end up as poor as everyone else when everything that they depend on for their comfortable lives collapses.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Some do. You’re wealthy and you care, don’t you? If you were trying to scrape by on a dollar a day and making choices between child A or B getting an education would you honestly sacrifice that choice for the world at large. I doubt it.
The point being you’re in a position to care and act, and people in poverty are not - and make no mistake you’re ‘wealthy’! (You’ve had an education, food on the table and no doubt have a reasonable access to monetary funds via employment opportunities others would, and do, literally die for - hence migration that carries mortal dangers).
A huge problem is the manner in which funds are allocated toward areas that have little impact upon the problems at hand. In many areas simply pumping money into it does little to no good at all. The idea that money solves all problems is silly, but ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ are not necessarily all about ‘money’. It is simply a question of ‘opportunity’ in regards to ‘wealth’/‘poverty’ - $100 in one country will go much further than in another.
If you look at schemes set up by people like Bill Gates you can see that they’ve learnt that when it comes to extremely important matters (ie. education) it is not solved by pumping money into education, as what matter FAR more is the teacher’s attitudes and passion.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Yeah, but we’re talking about a minority here and, as mentioned, people like yourself do care and the problems exists because not everyone in a position to do something know/care enough to do so. The poor don’t have a rational option/opportunity to live any differently.
Yes, I think AI, gm, nanotech and bioweapons should be on the list.
It is not clear what this question is asking. One way to read the question might be "What produces the most suffering for the most people now and in perpetuity?" Poverty would be a good answer, but so would death and disease, which are absent from the list. Moreover, it is not clear how granular and how proximate the answer ought to be. Poverty, for example, is a very general condition and a sink for most of the other listed issues. For example, corruption in the end produces poverty (as well as death and disease) by way of suboptimal governance.
The point of this question, which lists a hodgepodge of enduring conditions and potential threats, is also unclear. So let's say we pick one more or less general problem and wish it away. Then what?
I voted inequality because in concert with new technologies it threatens to deny large parts of the population a meaningful existence.
EDIT: And I will add that this is an answer to the specific question of what problem is in most need of adressing. Climate change needs to be adressed too for instance, but I don't think it is that pressing... because the really bad effects will only start to happen in a couple of decades. And I don't think we have any idea what the world and technology will be like in a couple of decades. Solutions to climate change could be a walk in the park then, whereas now we could spend billions and not even put a dent into the problem.
If technology will explode like it think it will, then I think inequality will cause a giant crisis long before climate causes anyway near the same damage.
Another justification is (and I've could've gone with corruption here too for that reason) that we can only adress problems if we have enough agency, as a species. Things that threathen that agency, also threaten the solution of other big problems.
Funny, no one else seems to be struggling with it. I guess that makes you special. Congrats.
Quoting SophistiCat
No it isn't. Maybe to you -- although I doubt you're being sincere -- but not to anyone else. The point was stated in the post: I'm interested to get a sense of what people would choose, if they had to. Of course I could write a thousand different qualifications and include a thousand other problems -- that goes without saying, but I was assuming we're all adults.
There's always at least one person who wants to play Socrates and claim fake confusion. So boring. Nonetheless, if something as clear and straightforward as this is really that confusing to you, feel free to simply ignore it and go on your merry way.
/sarcasm Welcome to my ignore list.
I'm devastated.
At least, 'also', since I think governments should have oversight and their oversight is often compromised by revolving door stuff and lobbying, if there is any. I am not sure they need their own category in the OP, but I think they should be mentioned. I think the greatest threats are technological. Some of our tech. solutions, may end up being final.
And I see people mentioning technology as a subset of inequality. Inequality is a serious problem, but it is not final one.
It is if we’re all equally dead :D
We know that educated women have less children, for example, so it's a factor in overpopulation in some way.
Someone quite literally told me the other day that, if they broke a leg, they wouldn't head off to the doctor/clinic, "I'm good thanks".
My impression is that they'd just ask Jesus, something like that.
It was just an example; I guess poor education might work both ways.