I would like to propose a potential postulate for the rest of humanity to consider. Feel free to poke holes in it all you like..... if you can.
I would truly love to be proven wrong.

Mankind has failed to maintain a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the planet (much less our own kind) and is on a path of self destruction. This could happen in myriad ways. The likelihood that our species will be able to flourish a million years from now is slim to none unless we can find a way off of this rock before we destroy it and learn to colonize other planets (ultimately the ones outside of our solar system too). Sadly, that doesn't seem likely to happen given the current state of humanity. We need to stop fighting over one rock and bring back true exploration for the masses so we can start fighting over the infinite number of other rocks that the universe holds (Yes.... I'm being a little cheeky there). ;-þ

This post was edited by TooGeek2bChic at September 26, 2016 2:49:09 PM PDT

Sadly, as long as people have no impulse control and refuse to distance themselves from their ego mania, we can't count on fixing that, unless a plot-twisting disaster happens.

Even then, disaster - even of the largest kind - usually only temporarily unifies people. Events do not change human nature (without physically altering humans), but they may temper it. I feel like escaping into the rest of the universe is only running from the problems at hand, and in the end only spreads the problem elsewhere.

I'm still holding out for a technological evolution that solves our issues of self (greed, fear, etc). Something akin to a less corrupt Ghost in the Shell.

Since everyone would like a change but gets agressively defensive when they're expected to actually make the change, that's a good idea, but only potentially - it can go well just as it can go very bad. Not to mean mind engineering will be considered inhumane so it would have to be forced on people.

I would agree that some of the fundamental traits in humans are flawed but tinkering with a persons thoughts using technology in order to change their actions is a very slippery slope, especially if it's not truly voluntary. I agree that we are obviously the root problem in this equation but I don't agree that mind control is a valid solution if we want to retain any of our humanity. I think that most of the world's problems boil down to overpopulation and insufficient resources. These resources exist in infinite supply throughout the universe. All we have to do is find a way to go out and get them.

The resources aren't insufficient to live though, we could live on Earth just fine if people abandoned the idea of comfortable status quo they're in and put the effort needed to change it for the better. (Globalization, mass meat and dairy production, lack of work ethics in production sector, mass media, food and non-degradable waste, corruption in healthcare, food production and scientific/educational institutions, institutionalized religion)
Since I don't think it's going to happen, I must agree with you regarding expanding outside of Earth. This is probably "progress", "evolution", and all, but I still don't appreciate *leaving the scorching ground behind* approach humanity is going for.

Also most people can't even take care of themselves and their families, so I don't see how they would care for the world they live in.

This post was edited by Deleted Member at July 14, 2016 7:39:59 AM PDT

We are reproducing and consuming resources at an unsustainable rate. If we can expand our reach beyond earth and get our resources from other places it will help alleviate the pressures on this ecosystem and maybe allow it to recover and flourish again. Many scientific breakthroughs will be necessary to achieve all of this. The first step is admitting we are the problem and somehow getting enough people to buy into valid solutions. However, without population control we will outgrow this planet eventually no matter how much we try to save it. Also, we need to take into account the eventuality that another catastrophic extinction event will occur that is beyond our control. When that happens, if all our eggs are still in one basket, humanity and all we've accomplished will be wiped out.

Hmm.. maybe I was slightly unclear with the solution I was proposing. I'm not advocating mind control - that's a fairly cut and dry violation of a person's individuality. What I am interested in is a networked human mind - one with unlimited access to the rest of humanity's collective experiences and knowledge. This means that youth would benefit from the wisdom of old age from the start. Misunderstanding would be impossible, if both parties were not holdig their thoughts back. Shame and social fears would be eliminated, as well as the desire to harm others (for normative minds).

People tend to be more affected by firsthand experience of suffering, so by sharing experience between people directly, you expose the emotion that comes with hat experience as well, in theory. Maybe this is just another method of sidestepping human nature throgh appealing to selfishness, but the more we are rationally interested in our environment and others that we are (rather than solely ourselves), the better the chance of long-term survival.

I absolutely agree that our current mode of living is unsustainable (for the myriad of reasons both of you have already stated) and that we should spread beyond Earth. I'd just like to make sure it's for reasons that make sense - to dodge natural cataclysms, rather than problems of human nature that will follow us through he cosmos.

I doubt that a collective mind would curb human nature and tendencies especially the destructive ones. Knowing and even feeling someone else's experiences doesn't guarantee empathy and a willingness to change for the good. I also think that this would destroy the concept of self and individuality and probably even freedom of choice. Good or bad, there is no escaping our humanity. As long as we are still human we will bring our flaws with us wherever we go. I understand the desire to fix our flaws before expanding our frontiers but I don't believe a zebra can change it's strips without becoming something completely different. If we tried to do the same how much of our humanity would we loose in the process? Also, a collective mind that had access to all of mankind's experiences would be the end of everyone's privacy as we know it. If that ever happened what would we sit around gossiping about all day?? .........

How exactly would you apply that? Given that someone would have to make that decision for the collective, do you think if they'd be in power to do so, they'd be so dedicated to the idea that they'd submit themselves to that?
We'd have a war individuals vs collective. One of them defending their ego and privacy, other ones defending the collective's good.

Most likely we'll just keep scorching the ground and expanding and ruling every place we go until we somehow get beaten by other species (my bet is either on the smallest ones, or a really messed up attempt at AI, depending on how would we achieve the networking)

Concequences aside, how would you make a mind collective like that? Wireless technology combined with brain implants, being tiny biorobots able to control the brain activity? How would you force the information put into the mind to be placed in conciousness and memory? Every cell of our body is part of our minds, how could we transmit that?

You guys have some great ideas here. If its cool I'll put my INFP 2 cents in.
I agree with DukeLeto that a disaster of some kind would only be temporary. Look at 9-11, that was great to start a war, but it also started a massive amount of hate towards a smaller group. Which caused its own problems (?Solutions?), humans irrationally look to blame someone for bad things happening.

Falkaiarhel, you bring up a good point about people's refusal to change. Is that mostly ignorance though? Look at the vaccination fight that some moms are having, again pointing to the irrational blame, its mostly just ignorance on the mom's part.

Also as far as resources go
Changes in Farming could be implemented across the globe, look at aquaponic type farming. There is a Denver farm that takes up 3200 sq ft that uses aquaponics and puts out more produce in a year than most 20 acre farms in the area, not to mention the fish they also produce. ( You INTJ's might have to check my stats on that )
So we could easily do away with hundreds and hundreds of acres of farm land, giving that back to natural biomes with a change in how we grow food.Again I think the reason most of this hasn't caught on is ignorance.

Changes like this can already be seen throughout in small pockets and needs to be brought up and used with disposable materials. Say instead of Styrofoam cups and plates, make them with the more biodegradable materials like bamboo, and plant fibers. Things like cow farms making degradable planters from manure waste, needs to be more normal.

Just a question for you INTJ's, yes there are some stupid people out there (the ones that can't learn no matter what you teach them), but is most of the rest of the population just ignorant? So to question some of your statements TooGeek2bChic, would the change in a person's persona caused by gaining more information on a subject they were ignorant to necessarily be removing their free will? They'd ultimately have to decide on what to choose after that of course.

I also like the idea DukeLeto put forward of a networked Collective mind. This is fantastic, but should also initially be developed with an AI Counter part, a sort of weights and balances measure, also to keep things on topic. The collective could also confer with other more rudimentary groups say local or regional government houses to also put forth their ideas. As a collective would be able to deliberate and decide on things much quicker, having a secondary check's and balance with the local/regional governments would hopefully make things between a collective and non collective people much more collaborative. While the non collective (basic's maybe?) people deliberate the collective can easily work on other things.

The collective mind should also be a choice, to keep free will a thing. Say a process much like the Amish do with their children. They are away and disconnected from the collective until say their 18th Birthday, at that point they should be given a choice as to whether they want to join the collective. If they don't no big deal, this would hopefully stop the war of individuals vs collective.

Pointing to part of this, a Neural Link of some sort is kind of paramount, this technology would open up so many avenues. I believe it will be the only way we can really create a true AI. A network system would need to be setup to work at neural speeds, say locally first then progressively outward into the Internet. Implementation of a neural link, say getting data directly from the base of the skull and start of the spine, would also have to be developed simultaneously.

All of this would ultimately boil down to, collaboration and less ignorance. Which could be helped with a change in our teaching standards. Say kids by 6th grade need to be able to do algebra (without a calculator) and by senior year of high school need to learn at minimum 3 languages fluently. Students need to be separated out based on how they learn, and taught by teachers that can adequately use that learning style, instead of just lumping them all together. We should even setup a Global Teaching standard, that would be suggested to follow.

Ultimately, everything about our daily lives needs to be changed. Transportation, medicine, teaching, engineering, waste processing, energy management, etc, etc. I think at a certain point monetary systems need to be dealt away with, but that's way way in the future.
I don't know, poke holes and all.

This post was edited by Deleted Member at July 18, 2016 7:38:17 AM PDT

I'm not sure why everyone is ignoring the most import part of my postulate. Our worldwide population has been growing exponentially for at least a hundred years now. Do you really think that all of these farming and livestock innovations are going to fix that? Most religions view birth control as an afront to God's will. Your suggestions would be a good start for enabling us to expand beyond earth but anything short of that is just buying us more time in my opinion. Less ignorance in the world would be a good thing of course but we can only lead the ignorant to water, we can't make them drink without taking away free will. I think it's a huge mistake to assume educating the ignorant will suddenly make them more responsible citizens. Much of what we do as a species doesn't come from rational thought or logic, it comes from deep seeded emotions that often trump logic and sabotage our future in the process. Creating a new world order with a centralized government to think for us isn't going to bode well for free thinkers and anyone else that doesn't fall in line. If any of you haven't already read the book 1984 by Orson Wells I suggest you do so. That is probably the most likely outcome for some of the ideas that have been mentioned here. Steamtech and Duke Leto, both of you are vastly underestimating the power of human greed and corruption. The solutions you are suggesting would be the perfect platform for the corrupt that are currently in power to further abuse that power and subjugate everyone else. I don't know, maybe that's what it will take to save us from destroying ourselves.

Also, it's funny that you would bring up the Amish Ramshpringa as an example of the "freedom of choice" they supposedly give their young. I'm guessing you are unaware of the consequences they face when they choose to leave the Amish lifestyle. Basically they are completely banished from the community including their own family and they are never allowed to return........ I have little doubt people would face the same predicament in your scenarios.

This post was edited by TooGeek2bChic at July 18, 2016 8:50:24 AM PDT

I brought up the Amish Ramshpringa, because it is freedom of choice. The consequences are simply that, consequences. If you choose to drink 150 bottles of beer at once, you can do that feel free, however the consequences that come from that are purely a result of your choice, not anyone else's.

The same can be said for immigrants coming to America for the first time, or Jehovah's witnesses if they choose not to believe in that religion (who also get banished like the amish), or a multitude of other instances. How the person deals with the consequences of their choice is purely up to them.

Now as far as over-population, that's where having a neural link and eventually full on virtual environment will come in handy to a certain extent. At a certain point after that technology is made, there will be advancements in virtual reality, and at some point down the road, people will choose to be completely removed from reality and basically become a brain in a jar connected to the Internet.

This will quell some of the over population issues, but not all of them. Assisted suicide, needs to be more common place, despite what others believe there is going to be a certain amount of the population that just doesn't want to live, it needs to become acceptable.

For additional things maybe bring back Greek style games for lifetime inmates, or make reproduction limited to only those with a license. Personally I believe that a large government is a bad thing, and don't suggest it at all. Breaking governments down into more local or area type sections might help, but to make anything change you need to be able to administrate it some how.
Either way no matter what you do, you're going to be taking away someones freedoms for some reason or another, in some way shape or form. Think of alcohol when it was outlawed, did it help things?

Greed and corruption, are everywhere, its kind of how Humanity has always been. Its in certain peoples nature, now can we somehow find out what causes it and treat it like an illness? Maybe, maybe not. Or rather treat it like a disease and burn it? Doubt it, greed and corruption started more and more with the advancement of both monetary systems and single seats of power, i.e. monarch, noble, lord of a land, president, pope, etc. The further and further we get away from having to purely survive, the more this pops up. The ideal of "I'm not as comfortable as so and so, I'm going to take what he has" will always be prevalent.

With a gradual shift in ideals, maybe people would find personal accomplishment to be better than sex, eventually. Then maybe, just maybe we'll see less greed and less corruption, but I highly doubt it. Small shifts like this can be seen already in some larger cities, like Tokyo, part of that is the acceptance of suicide, and the other part is that some people don't need sex to be happy. Their population has started to drop rapidly over the last few years.

Like you said you can bring the ignorant to water but can't make them drink, then let them die. Its a simple fact of life, we are born, and we die, the only thing that matters is our experience whether its remember by others or not. You can't save everyone on a sinking ship, but the ones that wish to survive will do the best they can to make their own way.

Right now Humanity is nothing more than a frog in a pot which is being brought up to a boil. Without a shift in how people view things, this won't change. (And yes I know the frog thing is a myth, sadly its also a really good comparison to just how some people are)

May seem heartless, but it is what it is.

This post was edited by Deleted Member at July 18, 2016 9:55:00 AM PDT

I agree wholeheartedly that very difficult changes will have to be made and there will be a huge price to pay for future generations. I'm just pointing out that the more radical the changes are the more likely it won't happen. If it does happen the way you propose, we will most certainly loose some of our humanity in the process. You are absolutely right that there will be consequences but those consequences are nothing more than choices other people decided to enforce in order to elicit the desired response (staying in the Amish lifestyle). Life will always be a struggle and there is no doubt that we will have to adapt or die. The question is..... will there be enough grains of sand in the hourglass of time for us to realize and achieve any of these potential solutions before it's too late? The stuff you guys are suggesting is so radical compared to what we have now it's extremely difficult to imagine humanity as a whole embracing it..... even if it's a matter of our own survival. However, it has to start somewhere and having candid conversations like this is as good a place as any. Now we just need to figure out how to get the rest of the population aware and engaged. :-)

I believe this shift has already been happening for quite a while. Look at the vegan movement, although it seems to have only recently been gaining ground to some, its been around since the early 30's. Although Veganism is kind of a radical way of looking at things, the dietary benefits from a slightly more vegetarian life style can already be seen hitting most of the coasts.

The same can be said for development in AI, most Americans grow up with big blockbuster movies about how AI is bad and that it will end us, ah la Terminator and the like. However most of the rest of the world is very active in its development. Japan has many corporations dedicated to development of advanced robotics and AI learning algorithms, same goes with Russia, Germany, and France. There are startups in the US, but they are only growing slowly out of California and some companies out of the East coast.

Neural developments are already being worked on, I don't know of the progress outside the US, but many of the things I see so far have been for amputee's. There is even a dedicated group of neuroscientists that want to have the human brain capable of interfacing with the Internet by 2045.

On top of the Aquaponics farming, Algae as a resource is being developed heavily in Arizona. The algae is being developed to be used for replacements for sugar, oil, starches, fuels, fertilizer etc.

Many of these technologies and advancements are already there, much like a puzzle dumped out straight from the box. Just no one's put all the pieces together yet.

==On a side note, but still on topic==
There is an idea that I've wanted to try for a long time, one of which would require a lot of funding to start out, and a lot of planning. Basically take modern civilization and cut it into pieces. These pieces become the lego bricks of a fully self sustaining city.
Whats the basic necessities for human's, Food, Shelter, Water, say electricity for lighting and heating and communication.

Solar and Wind are great to start out with for power, but other sources of power generation will need to be looked into, like the power generation from ionized particles in the air (company doing research currently in new york), or generating power from large compressed air resevoir (company in germany currently researching this). Mix generating technologies with currently developing battery technologies (look up Hot battery for grid storage), and you have renewable energy sources. (Currently there are several companies look at how to create cheaper and higher effeciency solar panels with less harsh waste products)

Then you throw in food growing techniques like aquaponics, and recycling foods through composting or creating other materials from the waste. Add in a healthy supply of bamboo, which is fast growing (and grows in majority of the temperature zones) and you've not only got decent flooring but cooking utensils, cups, scaffolding, piping you name it.

Then all you need is the buildings and people to build them. There are many homeless and wandering people, some of them would be good for this project. They would appreciate a good meal, and also would probably be greatful for a house to call their own. Using bamboo, as scaffolding, you could easily erect dirt based housing, (lookup dirtbag homes), make each person build or help build their own homes from the ground up. Normally people want homes of 1200sq/ft or higher, but most people don't need that. I know a lot of people that live in 600sq/ft or less, add in ceiling heights of up to 12ft, and you can easily put lofts and kitchenettes etc, use composting toilets and you don't have to worry to much about some of the waste.

Dirtbag style homes usually have 1.5ft to 3ft thick walls, which means absolutely perfect insulation for most temperature zones. Figure out how to make glass in that kind of environment and you could easily start creating dual pane gas sealed windows for use in the homes. Inside the houses temperatures can be maintained by passing air inside the house through a 9-12 foot U in the ground, normal temperate areas 9ft-12ft into the ground the ground regulates its temperature, often being cooler in the summers and warmer in the winters. (double check that i could be off a bit) You mix that with heating techniques like Rocket Mass heaters, and you can live pretty comfortably.

Its an idea that I've been contemplating for a long time, it just needs further thought. Things like waster reclamation and water reprocessing needs to be taken into account. Resources for running both water and electricity also need to be considered.
Just an idea for now though. Puzzle piece kind of idea.

This post was edited by Deleted Member at July 18, 2016 12:43:25 PM PDT

Well all the things you mention are nice ideas except for the fact that they are not currently profitable and we both know it won't happen on a global scale unless there is a profit to be made. I am a class1 wastewater treatment plant operator so I'm very familiar with the sciences involved in some of these endeavors. Germany is leading the world in green tech and even they are lightyears away from some of the things you discuss. I'm not saying these things aren't possible. .... just much easier said than done. Eventually we will have no choice but as of right now we can't even get a lot of people to agree that global warming is real much less do something significant about it. You are describing some Utopian society where everyone works together for the common good but we are so far away from that it's laughable.

Yep INFP, idealist to the very core. :(

The civilization starter idea that I mentioned before, would be the experiment to see if it works. Just like dollar bills when they were first introduced, people won't have any faith in it until its proven to work.

I wish more people were idealist, including myself sometimes frankly, but I'm an INTJ so that makes me more of a realist almost by default. :-(

I thank you for your input because there are definitely some good ideas there. I'm feeling a little cynical about humanity right now (obviously) but I still hope we can survive our own stupidity long enough to figure this stuff out. ;-)

Being a realist is important though, idealists like me give you the idea, you shoot it down, but secretly start to wonder if that would work.

Maybe down the line you will discuss it with someone else as a side note, an engineer, a plumber, a geologist whoever. The more you discuss it, the more facts you collect and more data you can gather, all the while repeating the cycle, idea - shoot down - revitalize idea. Basically breaking the idea into smaller and smaller more achievable parts.

Its a snowball effect. Or maybe its my idealism again, but the theory is sound.

This post was edited by Deleted Member at July 18, 2016 4:34:49 PM PDT

No Malthusians here? ;-)

Your opening post took the million-year view. From that perspective, an optimistic expectation might be that homo sapiens is not the endpoint of evolution. That raises the question of what it means to be human, though. I'd suggest that any line of thought that refers to "the masses" is unlikely to be constructive. Good luck, just the same.

For me, one of the central lessons of personality theory is this: there are (at least) 16 kinds of normal (...with all that that implies for evolutionary advantage) -- even those I can't stand.

This post was edited by Soloread at July 18, 2016 3:12:28 PM PDT

I have to admit I've never heard of Malthus until now but I guess I managed to come to some of the same conclusions on my own. I used the million year bench mark because I believe there are only a small handful of ways we could possibly make it that long without destroying our planet and ourselves in the process (given our current trajectory).

My college years (and a few thereafter) were spent reading many of the works now described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian as part of the "neo-Malthusian" revival -- and, of course, Brave New World.

But Malthus got it wrong -- as did Paul Ehrlich, Dennis Meadows, The Club of Rome, and many other very smart guys. Their concerns were not unfounded, but what can we learn from their errors?

This post was edited by Soloread at July 18, 2016 8:12:20 PM PDT

I'm not familiar with their work so you will have to tell me what you believe their mistakes were.

It's a huge body of work in which I am less than expert and for which there would be no room here in any case. My role here is not to defend a position -- only to alert you to paths that you might choose to follow in order to draw your own conclusions.

This post was edited by Soloread at July 18, 2016 7:09:34 PM PDT