[Poll] What is, according to you, the biggest moral challenge of our times?

Per Adriana's request, I've moved the question from the comment wall to its own discussion thread.

Nothing much to add, title says it all. Now don't be as lazy as I am, and discuss.

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jaume on February 17, 2011 at 11:05am

I think we should reconsider the social and economical model we opted for over the last century in the Western World, and drastically reform it, or maybe discard it entirely. Thinking that we can enjoy unlimited growth on a finite world is just absurd and ludicrous. Planned obsolescence may be good for the economy at the moment, but it can't last. Same with credit: how long can we spend more than we own? Think about it: Ponzi schemes would not be deemed immoral, or criminal, is they could last forever - and how is the consumerist model different? Both ultimately fail for exactly the same reason: they require unlimited growth, which is impossible when resources are finite.

Meanwhile, we're creating vast islands of unrecycled trash in the oceans, and turn impoverished countries like Ghana into huge toxic dumps. And I could go on for a while on ecological concerns, like global climatic change. Do we want our children to inherit a dilapidated, toxic planet? This, to me, is the main collective moral test we have to face today, and it won't be solved with expedients like making stuff from recyclable materials, which rarely get actually recycled anyway. The change needs to be more radical than that.

Permalink Reply by Jaume on February 17, 2011 at 11:22am

“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed” - Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi.

I'd go even further and say that Earth can provide enough to satisfy the needs of all, but not the greed of a few. ;-)

Permalink Reply by Jacob LeMaster on February 21, 2011 at 11:42pm

That should be printed on some sort of currency..

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 20, 2011 at 7:45am

Our Western societies, all said, have more inequality than poorer countries, so I'm not counting on that factor too much. I'd also be very sad to be a part of globalisation of values :(

Permalink Reply by Richard W. Symonds on February 17, 2011 at 7:48pm

Humanity's survival

Permalink Reply by Jaume on February 18, 2011 at 8:18pm

Doone, global population stats are meaningless. People can't even agree on the number of foreigners this planet hosts. E.g., ask a Belgian and a Chinese, and the discrepancy will exceed a billion.

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 20, 2011 at 7:54am

Capitalist economies need growth, a diminishing of human resources would be a catastrophe for capitalism. In the foreseeable future, poorer countries will simply be providing the extra bodies needed to feed the production machine. Our governments/corporations are already hedging their bets against depopulation by creating new cheap labour programs to import third world labour without any rights into our economies. Workers have become but peons for the race to riches and unless a MAJOR change happens in the power structure, a growth of human population will be enforced by international policies. Predicting future populations is as reliable as predicting the stock market. What counts is understanding the needs of the powerful, and they need MORE cheap labour, the more the better, because the more more under employed citizens there are, the more power the corporate leadership holds over the populace.

The other hedging of their bets comes in the form of baby subsidising through family tax deductions, baby credits, free childcare, etc. Anytime our modern nations feel a crunch of lowered populations, governments/corporations act to correct it.

Permalink Reply by Bill on February 18, 2011 at 4:54pm

That's what is needed. I would add that a comfortable population level for humans should be well less than 1 billion worldwide at any given time. The question is, how do we get back down to a reasonable population in a humane way?

Another way to think of this might be "what is the ideal human population size to maximize comfort and joy on earth?"

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 20, 2011 at 7:46am

I wish Sarah Palin knew that... :P

Permalink Reply by Jaume on February 18, 2011 at 2:17pm

Do you mean that pheromones are a vector for morality?

Permalink Reply by Bill on February 18, 2011 at 4:56pm

Or San Fransisco! (you can't surf in New York!)

Permalink Reply by Bill on February 18, 2011 at 5:49pm

See, I have this problem of seeing the world from my own point of view!