I don't have a url or anything, but if you need evidence humanity is in a very bad place you let me know and I'll scrounge something up.
Anyway, this is my first post here. I've been thinking about this for quite some time and am hoping that some of you are thinking along the same lines I am. I am of the opinion that the government, scientific, medical, educational, and media institutions are more or less complicit in the downfall of humanity. As many of you may also be aware there are very few people who control the destinies of so many of us on the planet. They do not seem to care about what they are doing and if they do, they are nightmarishly selfish about this topic.
So I come to ask you: what can we do and how long will it take? I do not want humanity to go out like this.
Thank you and good day!
According to scientists, overpopulation is the single biggest threat to the environment. So, the answer to your question would be: we need to drastically reduce the amount of humans living, breathing, eating, drinking and generally consuming things on this planet. How do we do that, that's another interesting question.
Isn't the way we relate to each other and the environment the more immediate threat? People the world over are ignoring the signs here. Also: overpopulation and subsequent movement of that population wouldn't be an issue if we had our shit together, amirite?
Permaculture is a set of ethics based off the principles of island indigenous peoples. Islands are fragile ecosystems, so overtime the ethics were developed to preserve biodiversity. Permaculture takes concepts from indigenous people all over the world to make a catalog of very efficient ways of doing things. You then design to suit your site and individual needs. There are many branches of permaculture. Economics is one of them, permaculture is all about growing all the food, fuel, fiber and "farmaceuticals " people need in a very small space modeled after a natural forest. Surplus time and products can be traded for money. There is a big push for alternative local currencies, and eventually telling the wealthy they have the wrong paper now. I am way too indoctrinated to think of many limitations. The biggest one is access to land for the majority of people. Property taxes are pretty hard to pay if you are just trying to live simply in an zero energy input house and off the food you grow. I am more in support of land distribution and waiving of property tax, than universal basic incomes. I had a miserably failed screenplay that suggested that people should move from the southwest to Detroit. That isn't that practical, because of all the hidden costs of moving there. I am going to school for parks administration to make public spaces with wild edibles for everyone.
I don't mean to diminish what I'm sure is a very serious question, even if it is presented in a very vague way, but that's cool, we are used to #vaguequestionsbypablo, right nowaypablo? But, I think George Carlin has a good answer to your question that may have you reframe how you pose it: Welcome to Hubski btw. Let me know if you have any questions about how the site functions etc.
How is what I said vague? Also George Carlin's viewpoint isn't especially helpful and are sort of defeatist. Also: satire.
Your question is "how can we save the planet?" There's no such thing as an answer to that. If you were to ask, "what can an individual do to diminish their carbon footprint?" Or "how can we conserve and distribute our global fresh water supply?" -these are still big questions but they're more likely to have a specific answer as they're not vague. I wasn't insulting your question. As for Carlin, it's definitely satire, but there is truth in jest. He's right, the planet will be just fine. WE (humans) are potentially screwed. It's a great observation imo.
Why do people say that? Of course there is a solution. And that is to use all the solutions. We have to diminish our foot print, use renewable clean energy, reverse the damage, we have to be more than we have been as a species and invest ourselves in our survival instead of in profit or oneupmanship. I understood that you weren't insulting me and thanks for welcoming me here. So far this place is far nicer than reddit.
I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't an answer. The planet will not disappear, even via what seems at times like our best efforts to destroy it. So, there are better ways to ask what I think you are asking. That's all. semantics? Maybe, but if you want serious answers, you have to ask serious questions, right?
Now I don't understand what you're saying. How is this question not serious? For instance: it is more or less implied that we would have to get people inside of these institutions to help in this struggle. Scientific breakthroughs are suppressed by big companies all the time. The electric car could've been way more developed. There are ways to clean the water etc etc