Is our planet is doomed?

[TruthWorthy]

I'd have to agree with Synackaon on the point of social status and the accumulation of wealth. These are probably the biggest motivators to everything that's wrong with the place. At the same time it is such organisations which have any say on what goes. All the arguments that are going to get off the ground would revolve around that minority of rich and powerful (oppressive).

[ib.me.ub]

Mmmmm, very interesting. What you have said above is true, but do you strive to become wealthy, powerful, or famous yourself? I know That I do. I strive to become wealthy.

I think we all strive to become one of those people who are oppressive, we all want to be someone. So, if you could be wealthy would you. If you could be famous, would you. If you could be 'known' (ie published, understood etc) would you. If you could become powerful, would you, and on and on. You know, who wants to be nobody, nothing, unimportant?hock:

And, if you did become important, what would you do.... would you become corrupted like so many before you, and enjoy the good life.

Every planet festered with idiots is doomed. So make your choice.

This maybe a dumb question, but what choice?

I would disagree that it is a human weakness, but I suppose it is possible. Why do we act so self destructively, either as a whole or individually? It's a big one, up there with 'where did we come from' and other philosophical conundrums.

It maybe human strength mixed with human weakness. i.e. strength in technology, weakness in greed/needs. And on your second point, most people don't even think about the world as a whole or our self destructive ways. Most people are worried about day to day things. Next pay check, next bill, girlfriend, boyfriend, etc, etc. The big things are too hard, and hence put into the too hard basket...

Check the title 'Is our planet is doomed?'

[Edwardo Piet]

Is out planet doomed?

Well yes if you mean will it be around forever... the answer is no.

But then I don't believe it will die because I don't believe it itself is a living organism.

I also believe that the human race will die out eventually, however soon or late that is... I don't believe anything lasts forever.

EvF

[TruthWorthy]

ib.me.ub:
who wants to be nobody, nothing, unimportant?

Society is told what standards are expected. What's 'good' and 'not-good'.
The biggest success of the marketing industry was discovered during 'pop culture'. Where they found influencing teens was easier and more effective than previous methods (in sales at least).
In the context of your post: It depends on what is important to you as an individual, as opposed to you in the social context, that determines who you will become.
What would you become famous for, should be the real question. Not that a 'calling' is necessary but say, for instance, becoming the worlds richest person, or the person who became richer than anyone else for developing a replacement for fossil fuel. Both represent success but one is much more meaningful.

[ib.me.ub]

ib.me.ub:
who wants to be nobody, nothing, unimportant?

Society is told what standards are expected. What's 'good' and 'not-good'.
The biggest success of the marketing industry was discovered during 'pop culture'. Where they found influencing teens was easier and more effective than previous methods (in sales at least).
In the context of your post: It depends on what is important to you as an individual, as opposed to you in the social context, that determines who you will become.
What would you become famous for, should be the real question. Not that a 'calling' is necessary but say, for instance, becoming the worlds richest person, or the person who became richer than anyone else for developing a replacement for fossil fuel. Both represent success but one is much more meaningful.

Yes, I would have too agree with you there.

[Pippy]

Some of us see the flaw in trying to gain as much wealth as possible, and choose to not live that life. I would agree wholeheartedly that a mixture of greed, influence and disassociation with reality have gotten us as humans in a conundrum. But it is not that all of us would want to be rich, famous or powerful. If I were rich (which I have been, it sucked) I would have that much more to share. It is a trick when you think that everyone wants to be rich and powerful, it is not the case. Some of us want to spend our time on this planet as ethically and constructively as possible, and don't have time for silly consumerism or commercialism.

[TruthWorthy]

Do you think there's a similarity between the religion vs. science conflict and this humanity vs. monetary problem today?
I think the argument is really a distraction from taking action. The studies which show that ethinic cohesion has been a contributing factor in many revolutions forms a quiet suspicion in me as to the mass acculturation occuring in the multicultural movement. I'm in no way against this movement, however I can't help but wonder if it's strategically imposed to accomplish some ground while thwarting public movements from attacking problems being ignored at the top.
Just a sneaking suspicion - not a conspiracy theory.

[theVOID]

Similarity between Religion Vs. Science and Humanity Vs. Monetary?

No... first, there is no "Religion Vs. Science", just "Idiocy Vs. Science" - The fact that the vast majority who are against science are also religious (but not exclusively) is however quite telling all the same.

Second, Monetary Exuberance does not mean you are inhumane - Again there is a correlation, stemming most prominently from greed, but it is not impossible to acquire vast amounts of money and still be a very ethical and humane person; Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Sergey Brin (Google founder) all spring to mind as extremely influential philanthropists, Sergey being the prime example as it is not just his personal contribution to philanthropy that stands out but the fact that he built Google from the ground up to be the most open and ethical company he could possibly make.

[TruthWorthy]

I probably should have used a better term than humanity.
Interesting though, how that small minority of individuals who hold most of the worlds money are somehow the object of scorn when we consider how much poverty could be removed by a single one of them.
Maybe my argument should have been about the resemblance between the two arguments because both arguments have a strong and stubborn side to them. Strong are science and the rich; stubborn would be the religious and the poor.
Poor being the underlying factor in both circumstances because religion is designed to favor oppressed people, ie, "the meek shall inherit the earth" - nonsense!

[theVOID]

Consider how much poverty is removed by them when they have no obligation to do so as opposed to the religious institutions who raise the majority of their money on the premise that it is going towards a good cause and still often come out equally as rich and philanthropic as the corporations and millionaires/billionaires who have no moral obligation to be philanthropic.

Religion favoured the poor? Have you not noticed the giant golden palace the pope lives in? All the while he's preaching humility and equality... what a joke. The reason more poor people are religious is due to lack of education and the fact that missionaries who claim to be trying to help these people are often just as concerned with filling their converts quota. It's like a pissing contest amongst clergy, see who can convert the most because they are most certainly rewarded from the top for their efforts, and if that involves making conversion to the Christian faith compulsory for poor to receive their meal then many would do it, and i can't blame them, i would too was i that desperate.