Did you ever think about that? Exactly what is the objective of the human race? Are we just a bunch of animals looking out for number one? If we are, then this blog is a total waste of time. I am not a religious person, so this has nothing to do with religion, but with our intelligence we should have some kind of purpose or objective. The objective of this blog is to see if I can start a conversation that will result in some kind of agreement on an objective for the human race.
I was talking to a friend and asking this same question. He said that the objective was to "progress". I don't know exactly what that meant, but on further questioning he said, "to get ahead". I'm not sure that helped either. What does, "get ahead" really mean? Ahead of what or who? What if we were all exactly equal, then no one would either be behind or ahead. If that were the case, it is clear that we need something better as our objective.
How about something as simple as, "a good quality of life"? This would imply more than enough to eat and a warm safe bed to sleep in. I know that each person has their own definition about exactly what is a, "good quality of life", but I can deal with that. The thing that one notices about, "good quality of life" is that it is base on the "individual". It is not based on the total number of people on Earth who have a "good quality of life", it is base on the idea that all or most people on Earth would have a "good quality of life". It makes no difference how many people are here on Earth at one time, so I think we can eliminate the total number of people on Earth as being related to the "objective Of The Human Race". Once that is done and we can focus on the real or primary objective, we can start to make some progress.
To make this point more graphic, if we had twice as many people living in New York city, would that make the quality of life better or worse? Anyone with a brain would see that the more people who live in New York city, the lower the quality of life. It would be the same for any country or city. If it is clear that the more people we have living on Earth, the lower the general quality life, wouldn't it be a natural conclusion that "less" people is better?
Humans stated out as hunter gatherers and survived that way for millions of years. If it was so bad, then how did we survive? The reason was that the Earth had a very low density of humans. I was watching a TV show about Alaska and people who lived off the grid and were actually hunter gatherers. They did OK until some one got the big idea to put in a road so people from New York city could go there for a visit. When the road came in, people from the outside hunted and fished all the food away that the original people lived off of. Their quality of life went down. This is just a small sample, but it is the same world wide. The more people, the lower the quality of life.
I spent a couple of months traveling around India and it was clear to me that India had far too many people for the productivity of their land. The Indians were resourceful and were able to feed their people, but they could not provide them with any kind of "quality of life". Quality of life is a lot more than just having enough food to eat.
I like to fly fish for trout and you can't do that just any place. For me, being able to go fly fishing is an important aspect of my definition of quality of life. If we have too many people, there will be no fly fishing for anyone. I also like to hunt deer and pheasants. If we have too many people, it is going to make it impossible for me to hunt. That lowers my quality of life and for anyone else who likes to hunt or fish.
What seems to be the objective on most social and governmental groups is to promote the increase in human population on Earth, not the quality of life of the individual. Look at the two major religions, Catholic and Muslim, both promote breeding and the production of "more" humans on Earth. Why do they do that? Both of these religions are really "franchises" who want more money and power for their promoters, the preachers and fathers. These people are sick and do not understand anything about the quality of life for us humans here on Earth. If we had half the number of people here on Earth that we have now the quality of life would be much better. Why is that not clear to everyone?
Obama claims that "global warming" is the biggest thing that is going to lower our quality of life, when it is the boom in population that is by far the biggest danger. The Earth is not running out of fresh water, it is the fact that we have too many people drinking the water that we have.
I hope you have started to get the message that we need some kind of fundamental objective for the human race and that objective should be something like, "quality of life". If we could agree on the objective, we would then have a means to "test" if our actions helped or hindered. Simple isn't it?
I was talking to a friend and asking this same question. He said that the objective was to "progress". I don't know exactly what that meant, but on further questioning he said, "to get ahead". I'm not sure that helped either. What does, "get ahead" really mean? Ahead of what or who? What if we were all exactly equal, then no one would either be behind or ahead. If that were the case, it is clear that we need something better as our objective.
How about something as simple as, "a good quality of life"? This would imply more than enough to eat and a warm safe bed to sleep in. I know that each person has their own definition about exactly what is a, "good quality of life", but I can deal with that. The thing that one notices about, "good quality of life" is that it is base on the "individual". It is not based on the total number of people on Earth who have a "good quality of life", it is base on the idea that all or most people on Earth would have a "good quality of life". It makes no difference how many people are here on Earth at one time, so I think we can eliminate the total number of people on Earth as being related to the "objective Of The Human Race". Once that is done and we can focus on the real or primary objective, we can start to make some progress.
To make this point more graphic, if we had twice as many people living in New York city, would that make the quality of life better or worse? Anyone with a brain would see that the more people who live in New York city, the lower the quality of life. It would be the same for any country or city. If it is clear that the more people we have living on Earth, the lower the general quality life, wouldn't it be a natural conclusion that "less" people is better?
Humans stated out as hunter gatherers and survived that way for millions of years. If it was so bad, then how did we survive? The reason was that the Earth had a very low density of humans. I was watching a TV show about Alaska and people who lived off the grid and were actually hunter gatherers. They did OK until some one got the big idea to put in a road so people from New York city could go there for a visit. When the road came in, people from the outside hunted and fished all the food away that the original people lived off of. Their quality of life went down. This is just a small sample, but it is the same world wide. The more people, the lower the quality of life.
I spent a couple of months traveling around India and it was clear to me that India had far too many people for the productivity of their land. The Indians were resourceful and were able to feed their people, but they could not provide them with any kind of "quality of life". Quality of life is a lot more than just having enough food to eat.
I like to fly fish for trout and you can't do that just any place. For me, being able to go fly fishing is an important aspect of my definition of quality of life. If we have too many people, there will be no fly fishing for anyone. I also like to hunt deer and pheasants. If we have too many people, it is going to make it impossible for me to hunt. That lowers my quality of life and for anyone else who likes to hunt or fish.
What seems to be the objective on most social and governmental groups is to promote the increase in human population on Earth, not the quality of life of the individual. Look at the two major religions, Catholic and Muslim, both promote breeding and the production of "more" humans on Earth. Why do they do that? Both of these religions are really "franchises" who want more money and power for their promoters, the preachers and fathers. These people are sick and do not understand anything about the quality of life for us humans here on Earth. If we had half the number of people here on Earth that we have now the quality of life would be much better. Why is that not clear to everyone?
Obama claims that "global warming" is the biggest thing that is going to lower our quality of life, when it is the boom in population that is by far the biggest danger. The Earth is not running out of fresh water, it is the fact that we have too many people drinking the water that we have.
I hope you have started to get the message that we need some kind of fundamental objective for the human race and that objective should be something like, "quality of life". If we could agree on the objective, we would then have a means to "test" if our actions helped or hindered. Simple isn't it?
