10 of Earth's most important issues

[exigeracer]

Do any of you follow TED talks? They seem to be the Bible for progressive designers and thinkers these days, and many of the speakers have such a vast amount of knowledge worth spreading, that even if some of your opinions may differ, it is always good to keep yourself informed of what others are up to.

Here is Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist, speaking of what important world issue is the most-worth saving. If we had 50 billion dollars to spend over the next 4 years, what should it be on? The list includes

Climate Change
Communicable Disease
Conflicts
Education
Financial Instability
Governance and Corruption
Malnutrition and Hunger
Population: Migration
Sanitation and Water
Subsidies and Trade Barriers

How would you prioritize these items from most important (1) to the least important (10)? He explains his opinion pretty good, but I want yours. What is your #1? Why?

Share.

Try to rank yours before being influenced by his speech, which is found at

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

 

[ceiling_fan]

Sanitation and Water

I find that to be overlooked by a lot of people. I don't know what I would prioritize first, probably communicable disease or conflicts.

 

[Sage]

I’d roughly tank them like this (in no particular order within each tier):

Top tier
Communicable Disease
Conflicts
Governance and Corruption
Sanitation and Water
Malnutrition and Hunger

Middle tier
Financial Instability
Subsidies and Trade Barriers (I don’t know what “Subsidies” means though in this context)

Bottom tier
Climate Change
Education
Population: Migration


Of course, these aren’t mutually exclusive problems (e.g., most of the top tier problems stem from a couple of core issues).

 

[exigeracer]

I actually had originally typed this in the Opinions section, but switched over to Rumble Strip to finally post it. I wanted to get the general population to place their opinion on this topic, not just the usual suspects that hang out in the Opinions forum. I guess if you guys see it fits better here based solely on the original post subject, then fine.

I'll add my list a little later once I see what everyone else has suggested.

 

[Joey D]

Ranked from least important to most important.

10.) Climate Change - There isn't much humanity can do about this. Little evidence and misguided information makes people think this is something the human race has done to the planet. Either we accept that the earth's weather goes in cycles or we spend billions to figure out something that can not be changed.

09.) Population: Migration - It's not really a problem, people are going to move around to different areas.

08.) Subsidies and Trade Barriers - If some countries do not want xx goods then that is their choice, you should not force consumer goods on a culture if they do not want them.

07.) Financial Instability - There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor, you can not change this because of human nature.

06.) Malnutrition and Hunger - Yes it is heartbreaking to hear about people not having enough food in the world, but we tackle this problem all wrong, we just give them food instead of teaching them how to generate their own.

05.) Communicable Disease - This will sound bad but we actually sort of need these in order to evolve as a species as well as population control. I'm not saying I want to commit a million people to die of anthrax or something to be clear.

04.) Conflicts - It's important to control conflicts between nations since they take up a great deal of humanities time, money, and resources that could be spent on the betterment of the species.

03.) Governance and Corruption - Big problem in some of the world's most built up nations, China being a fine example. Corruption leads to the degrade of society and eventually internal or external conflicts.

02.) Education - In order to advance we need people to come up with new ideas and know how to implement them.

01.) Sanitation and Water - Without clean drinking water we die, it's that simple.

One not on the list I think should be there is natural resource allocation.

 

[Sage]

Communicable Disease - This will sound bad but we actually sort of need these in order to evolve as a species as well as population control.

As soon as we have enough of a hand on biotechnology to eradicate most communicable diseases, then trust me, we won’t need to worry about “evolving”. Biotechnology has the potential to do what natural selection does, except thousands of times faster and better.

And I don’t want to get off on a tangent here, but overpopulation seems to me to be just as much a sham as global warming. Consider this: if you allowed the US to reach the present-day population density of Monaco, you could fit 228 billion people in it. Which means you’d still have the rest of the world for agricultural and natural resource uses.

Also consider this.

 

[Omnis]

Following Sage's lead, but in particular order:

Top tier
Sanitation and Water
Communicable Disease
Malnutrition and Hunger
Subsidies and Trade Barriers (If it means getting rid of both)

Middle tier
Financial Instability
Conflicts
Education

Bottom tier
Governance and Corruption (this is tough because it should be high priority, but outside intervention in creating government always fails or is tumultuous. The governed have to make their own contract)
Population: Migration
Climate Change

 

[GT Pro]

#1 is undoubtedly water. It's the source of all life and thus without it, we die.

#10 is Climate change. It's a natural occurence and it's something we can do little about. Those gullible enough to believe humans have caused it, via the propagandised sensation that is global warming, are just as dangerous as these issues listed.

 

[Stevisiov]

As soon as we have enough of a hand on biotechnology to eradicate most communicable diseases, then trust me, we won’t need to worry about “evolving”. Biotechnology has the potential to do what natural selection does, except thousands of times faster and better.

I am intrigued, is such a thing possible/plausable in the near future?

 

[Blake]

I have to ask why there seems to be little to no emphasis on technology; primarily renewable energy and space exploration. Surely these are massive issues for the human race? I’d definitely want to put a big chunk of that 50 billion into those areas…

 

[Touring Mars]

In approx. overall order...

Top tier
Education
Governance and Corruption
Conflicts
Climate Change

Middle tier
Communicable Disease
Sanitation and Water
Malnutrition and Hunger

Bottom tier
Financial Instability
Subsidies and Trade Barriers (I don’t know what “Subsidies” means though in this context)
Population: Migration



My list couldn't be more different to Sage's, despite stealing his idea for prioritizing in three categories The reason I've put them in the order I have is because I feel that the top tier are fundamentally important issues that directly influence the others.

Some issues - such as addressing what to do about global warming (not Climate Change per se) - are technically, scientifically and politically far more of a challenge than other relatively straightforward logistical problems, like providing clean water and food to areas where there is a shortage. Our current technologies makes it simple to provide abundant food and water, but actually doing it is largely an economic or logistical problem. Water itself is not in short supply for the foreseeable future - but the main problems in providing drinking water lie in governance (and corruption) and are exacerbated by conflict.

I think education is of key importance - education provides the grassroot support for any scientific or technical endeavor, be it challenging disease to inventing sustainable energy supplies, or travelling to Mars, hence why I'd make it my #1 priority.

My bottom tier are still important issues, but again, I feel that these are issues that are least unresolvable, and infact you could go as far to say as they are 'self-correcting' issues - there are inherent balances and checks in these areas that demand the lowest level of 'innovation' to solve.

I disagree most strongly with the posts saying that global warming is a sham, a myth or an unsolvable problem. Global warming is real, with plenty of evidence to show that it is happening and that we face potentially immense problems in the future as a result. There is plenty of propaganda on both sides of the debate, but for me it is not important whether or not humans played a role in causing the current trend in global temperature increases, but it is a human problem to address our future in a warmer climate. To say we can't do anything about it is nonsense. To say we shouldn't bother trying to understand why it's happening and what we could possibly do about it is nonsense too. At the very least we need to know what (if anything) we can or should do about it. It is not the planet or anything else on it that we are trying to "save" here, it is the well-being of human society that is the issue (for us anyway). Ignoring the alarmists who predict cataclysm is one thing. Ignoring the issue completely, however, is as irresponsible as you can get.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, but the whole point was to categorize things as economically feasible as possible. Like the Danish guy was saying, 50billion can do a lot more for hunger/disease/etc than for climate change and governments.

 

[Joey D]

As soon as we have enough of a hand on biotechnology to eradicate most communicable diseases, then trust me, we won’t need to worry about “evolving”. Biotechnology has the potential to do what natural selection does, except thousands of times faster and better.

I don't really know if I like the idea of genetic science shaping the way people are, I can see that creating problems.

And I don’t want to get off on a tangent here, but overpopulation seems to me to be just as much a sham as global warming. Consider this: if you allowed the US to reach the present-day population density of Monaco, you could fit 228 billion people in it. Which means you’d still have the rest of the world for agricultural and natural resource uses.

Just because there would be the rest of the world would be available does not mean it is going to be good to provide us with natural resources. There is quite a bit of land that doesn't support agriculture all that well, at least in the western sense.

But really you would run out of resources if the world was more populated. Not to mention there would be more waste, pollution, conflicts, and the emergence of even a great class to rule over people and allocate resources. The population does need to be controlled and illnesses is a very good way of nature balancing everything out.

 

[exigeracer]

Alright now that I've seen what others feel as important, I'll throw down my list. It comes somewhat as a surprise that I took this approach when nobody else did, not here, not in Lomborg's bit and not in my class discussion on this topic.

If you take a look at the list, 6 or 7 of the problems stem from things that the human race did upon themselves, whether it is since WWII, since the Industrial Revolution or the medieval days, those things are problems we have done onto ourselves. To fix them, we might just have to pull out the gigantic ballpoint pen and press the tiny reset button on the back of the human race. To do this without killing everyone, you have to go back to where people went wrong and try to undo it.

Give a population a sense of purpose, a pride, and a notion of social responsibility to help his or her neighbor, so that they stay put and help contribute to their like peoples. This problem arose when people migrated to cities and gave up their original occupations for search of prosperity in bigger villages or cities. This is still happening, with many countries facing high death rates, low birth rates and populations evacuating their native countries as soon as they have the means to. This leaves unstable economies, assimilated cultures and languages and empty sense of global purpose. Giving a population that pride and sense of importance has saved entire cultures from extinction. Think about how this has affected historical issues like revolution. Slavery isn't on that list for a reason.

Once the population has a reason to be happy with where they live and who they live with, they are able to use the resources available to them to make their country a prosperous and enjoyable nation. That is, of course, if they are governed in a fair, clean and most importantly democratic government who will do the best for their people.

With that set up, take a look at how many of those other 8 problems fall into place immediately. The stable, happy, well-governed population can immediately work on sanitation, nutrition, disease and education of their own people by themselves. This leaves trade barriers, conflict and financial instability ancient myths of the past. The key is a population who want to stay put and contribute to their own purpose and place in the world and not flee to Great America. They need to be well represented and well governed. Everything else will take barely decades to fix iself.

So that leaves Climate Change at the bottom, mostly for reasons that Lomborg brought up. Cooperating in global agreements to make everyone do their part in dealing with the undenyable problem would be a good first step, but it would a long and rocky road.

I think that my theory is one of several viable alternatives to help save Earth from 10 major issues. It may be radical and somewhat idealistic, but setting up those two top issues from the start would automatically eradicate almost all of the other problems. Any thoughts?

 

[Sureboss]

Yeah, but the whole point was to categorize things as economically feasible as possible. Like the Danish guy was saying, 50billion can do a lot more for hunger/disease/etc than for climate change and governments.

I think we should use the 50 Billion to create the bigger pair of sunglasses ever, and put them across Antarctica..

 

[Touring Mars]

Yeah, but the whole point was to categorize things as economically feasible as possible. Like the Danish guy was saying, 50billion can do a lot more for hunger/disease/etc than for climate change and governments.

Lomborg certainly makes a good case - and arguably it is the task of economists to make such decisions based on cold, hard calculations of what gives you most value for money. The problem for me, though, is that a model system such as this can give you a different answer depending on the variables you define at the start, and hence the conclusions should be taken with a large dose of salt when the variables are as uncertain as they are in reality. As a short-term, low-budget economic exercise, perhaps the list the Copenhagen Consensus concludes with is sensible - for a budget of just $12.5 bn per year for 4 years. But it's hardly realistic, and it depends on whether you are estimating the most predictable short-term outcomes or far less predictable long-term outcomes. For this reason alone, long-term fundamental issues are never likely to score high on a list of 'immediate priorities'. You see this in science all the time. Far more money gets spent on 'hot topics' than on fundamental science, but arguably it is the fundamental science that ultimately provides the basis for all research.

In the long-term, I'd rather spend $50 bn on issues that are likely to lead to progress in as many fields simultaneously as possible rather than getting the maximum impact in just a few individual projects. For example, investment in education would lead to tangible benefits in all of these areas. The corollary of that is to say that some subjects - like malnutrition and hunger (famine), can be addressed by investing in several different areas which are direct drivers of famine, such as conflict resolution, anti-corruption measures, and steps to mitigate the effects of global warming (drought, desertification, flooding etc.), rather than 'just' addressing famines as and when they happen. Unfortunately, the sum in question is not likely to make a long-term impact in any of these issues, not least the most challenging long-term issues like tackling climate change - hence why the list determined in the Copenhagen Consensus is not entirely useful as an argument to persuade policy-makers who have long-term stability in mind.

Lomborg argues that tackling climate change should not be a top priority simply because it is not efficient enough. The problem with this argument is that the real costs and value of benefits are not known, hence conclusions based on efficiency are at best pretty sketchy since there is a large degree of uncertainty present. You could also look at it from the hypothetical viewpoint of total certainty. If a problem exists and it is known that x amount of dollars will solve it, no amount of economic analysis is going to change that amount, so one way or another you are going to end up paying for it regardless. Lomborg argues that under current global economic conditions, tackling climate change is too expensive for the estimated benefits. But what exactly makes him think that it is going to get any cheaper as the problems start to get more serious? As current evidence shows, global warming will continue and will accelerate. Lomborg himself said in the Washington Post that global warming is real and that it has to be tackled. He may well be justified in saying that given just a small amount of cash, there are arguably better things to spend the money on for short term benefits. But the argument falls down when you ask how much long-term impact can be made by such a small amount of money.

 

[ceiling_fan]

Holy... I'm considering changing my post of the year vote. That sums up the whole problem with money and scientific research in a mere three paragraphs. 👍

 

[Danoff]

Climate Change
Communicable Disease
Conflicts
Education
Financial Instability
Governance and Corruption
Malnutrition and Hunger
Population: Migration
Sanitation and Water
Subsidies and Trade Barriers

I don't like the list. Lemme switch a few. I'll trade terrorism for conflicts. Economic freedom for financial instability and trade barriers (that's a 2fer). I'll take social freedom for education. The last two also eliminate governance and malnutrition. I'll take renewable energy for sanitation and water (since that's what the problem really is). That leaves disease, climate change, and population as the only original entries. So my list:

Terrorism, Economic Freedom, Social Freedom, Renewable Energy, Disease, Climate Change, Population.

Most Important
Economic Freedom
Social Freedom

Pretty Important
Renewable Energy
Terrorism

Kinda Important
Disease

Not Important
*Climate Change
Population


*Until the facts are in. If it turns out that we're causing it, we can stop it, and it's important to stop it - then I'll bump the priority.

 

[Sureboss]

I doubt we can ever stop the effects of climate change because that'd mean somehow reversing what's causing the increase of temperature (CO2), we could reduce the impact we make (if we make one, whatever you belief).

 

[Year.Zero]

Wouldn't reversing climate change necessitate a huge bump in O2 production and a huge drop in CO2 production? (At least for a solution that doesn't take 100+ years to reverse.)

I just can't wrap my head around doing that, because almost everything we do inevitably produces CO2—even breathing.

 

[Sureboss]

Yup, we constantly produce CO2 (especially vegetarians who eat lots of beans...). I don't think we'll reverse climate change, ever, only if like Mr Burns we blocked out the sun.

Problem is, we don't know enough about climate change, another problem is, that IF (that's big btw) we are having an effect on it, by the time we know what to do to combat it, it could be too late.

We talked about this in Science tonight (Insulation, etc) and how houses aren't built at all efficiently, ie, south facing (in north hemisphere anyway), etc. An interesting thing my tutor brought up tonight though, was the theory that if all buildings were painted white (roofs and all) the light reflected back, would be enough to counter to excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.

That theory I'd love for one of our Science people to explain a little further if they can. *looks in TMs direction*

 

[Danoff]

That theory I'd love for one of our Science people to explain a little further if they can. *looks in TMs direction*

Colors reflect the wavelengths of light that you actually see. When you see a color, you're seeing light reflected from the object that you're seeing. White is the reflection of all visible wavelengths, black is the reflection of none of them. As such, black absorbs more energy than white, and so it heats up more.

I think the notion that your instructor trying to get across is that a house painted white will absorb less light (heat) than a house painted white. This does two things.

1) It radiates heat back into space rather than retaining it on the surface of the earth. It does this by effectively increasing the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), even if just by a bit.

2) It reduces cooling energy required by preventing your house from getting quite as hot in the first place. A reduction in energy required for cooling means a reduction in C02 emitted in producing that energy in the first place.

Problem is, it also increases heating energy needs in the winter. We'd get way more reduction in greenhouse emissions if, say, we could convince the entire US to move to San Diego.

 

[Omnis]

So it's time to make heat sensitive chameleon paint. One problem I see with this, however, is warm-bodied jokesters or animals urinating on the side of your house in the middle of winter and leaving white marks.

 

[Sage]

Problem is, it also increases heating energy needs in the winter. We'd get way more reduction in greenhouse emissions if, say, we could convince the entire US to move to San Diego.

That shouldn’t be too difficult – it’s quite nice down here.

 

[Danoff]

1) It radiates heat back into space rather than retaining it on the surface of the earth. It does this by effectively increasing the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), even if just by a bit.

BTW - Clouds do a much better job of reflecting sunlight back into space than roofs. Scientists still haven't determined whether increased temperatures on Earth means more clouds or less. In otherwords, they don't know whether global warming will cause the Earth to become more reflective (thereby correcting the problem) or more absorbent (thereby exacerbating the problem).

How they can not know that is beyond me. It's such a simple question, does global warming increase or decrease cloud coverage? No answer. That's not even asking how much - just the direction. Oh well, Gore said the science is in, so I guess we should listen to him.

 

[Stevisiov]

So it's time to make heat sensitive chameleon paint. One problem I see with this, however, is warm-bodied jokesters or animals urinating on the side of your house in the middle of winter and leaving white marks.

Thermochromatic paint FTW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermochromism

it would make for quite an interesting paint job on your car, different colour around the engine etc..

 

[Sureboss]

Colors reflect the wavelengths of light that you actually see. When you see a color, you're seeing light reflected from the object that you're seeing. White is the reflection of all visible wavelengths, black is the reflection of none of them. As such, black absorbs more energy than white, and so it heats up more.

I think the notion that your instructor trying to get across is that a house painted white will absorb less light (heat) than a house painted white. This does two things.

1) It radiates heat back into space rather than retaining it on the surface of the earth. It does this by effectively increasing the Earth's albedo (reflectivity), even if just by a bit.

2) It reduces cooling energy required by preventing your house from getting quite as hot in the first place. A reduction in energy required for cooling means a reduction in C02 emitted in producing that energy in the first place.

Problem is, it also increases heating energy needs in the winter. We'd get way more reduction in greenhouse emissions if, say, we could convince the entire US to move to San Diego.

Instructor? I meant my Science tutor, if there's any confusion.

I know about white reflecting heat/light and black/dark absorbing it, I didn't get how it would offset the excess CO2 though. Thanks Danoff.