Gabriel

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

The main problem imo is that you're goal is to provide a pragmatic solution for all people which can't work. (also not 'in theory')

People deal very different with the concepts you mentioned depending on their place in the hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy is not proven but the main concept is imo correct.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

First some 'facts', this is from google:

"Nearly 1/2 of the world's population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. 1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty."

"When you answer this quiz, Hunger Notes will make a donation to assist people in crisis. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that about 815 million people of the 7.6 billion people in the world, or one in ten, were suffering from chronic undernourishment in 2016."

When you struggle to fulfill the basic physiological needs then spending time with your children, forgiving people, travelling…(and the other stuff you mentioned) then people can't deal with those concepts in a way you find logic. I don't know where you live but many/most people live very different then you do.

I see what you mean. What I should do, I suppose, is work on a different scale. Perhaps I should focus on indivudal countries instead of the entire planet, that way each solution will be more precise and effective then a premise that merely says "Do what is right."

Thank you for that, I appreciate it

On 11/13/2018 at 8:27 AM, Itoero said:

When a cellphone gets stolen it's most of the times no by someone you know. You remember how and why it got stolen and change your behavior so it doesn't happen again.

Knowing how you could have prevented an undesirable situation after it's happened and changing how you act to prevent that situation from happening again is part of how we grow as people. For example, I wrote this paper, and I learned that I am fundamentally vague and unclear with how I communicate my ideas to other people, so I will try to change how I communicate so people can understand me clearly.

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

I've many time been asked 'Can you forgive me?' while there was imo nothing to forgive. In such a case I forgave while there was no grudge.

So then forgiveness isn't something you need to do to become a biologically healthy person at the moment. Some people experience chronic health problems due to their unwillingness to forgive (including my family) and my example was more directed at them then somebody who doesn't have much of a problem with forgiving someone. 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I rather doubt that Gabriel's point was directed at you specifically.
His view is that everyone should forgive.
It's like communism- it only works if everyone does it (properly, all the time).

However, regardless of what others do, if you forgive then, at least, you save yourself the effort of maintaining your dislike or bearing a grudge or whatever you call it.

I'd like to add to that by saying my point isn't precisely about forgiveness whatsoever. My point (as stated in my initial paper) is to act off of a premise that provides well-being to you as an individual, and I happened to cite forgiveness as a possible example that may bring that into being should you need to do so in the first place.

29 minutes ago, Itoero said:

 

That's true but isn't this dependent on your 'mindset'? Many people wronged me in some way, but I don't hold grudges and after a while I  just forgave them. But their wrong-doing is still in my mind. Forgiving is not the same as forgetting.

When someone steals my cellphone, I will never forgive him. That doesn't mean I hold a grudge.

It's possible to think of anything in a detached, non-judgmental sort of manner without getting emotionally evolved. The problem occurs when a thought keeps provoking negative emotions in the body (such as anger for example) that are known to release chemicals that are known to be harmful to your body in the long-term.

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/anger-how-it-affects-people

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

So when someone steals your cellphone, you forgive him? When someone throws acid in your face you forgive him?

 

 

Yes. Not only is it possible to forgive someone after they throw acid in your face (some of my friends and I have forgiven people who have done worse then that) but it is also critical for your own biological and psychological health.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/healthy_aging/healthy_connections/forgiveness-your-health-depends-on-it

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/forgiveness/art-20047692

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/ce-corner.aspx

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/media-spotlight/201503/forgiveness-and-your-health%3famp

 

On 11/9/2018 at 2:05 PM, Itoero said:

Seriously?

Yes, if that's something you know you should do.

On 11/9/2018 at 2:05 PM, Itoero said:

And what if you don't have children? And what with all those people that are weeks/months away to earn money to feed their children?

If you don't have children then you wouldn't need to spend time with them. 

It's not necessary to spend every second with your children (usually). If I was unable to spend time with them every day then every second I spend at home would be with my family.

On 11/9/2018 at 2:05 PM, Itoero said:

Many/Most people don't have the capabilities to obtain healthy food or simply don't care for healthy food.

Many people's income/job causes pollution and have to (mis)use natural resources. For example, people that cut down rainforest do that to earn money(often to be able to feed their family), not because they like it.

And what if you live in a country like Somalie, South Sudan or Syria?

The principle I have introduced in this paper is universal, but it would only work if the leaders of their respective sector of the world (from countries to palm oil corporations) saw its information and applied it to their everyday life. 

Also, everything I mentioned in that paragraph are examples. Everybody has different things they need to do (or not do).

On 11/9/2018 at 2:29 PM, studiot said:

What about declining fertility rates?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46118103

From what this article says, the decline of fertility rates can be pinned down to three (main) reasons:

"Fewer deaths in childhood meaning women have fewer babies

Greater access to contraception

More women in education and work"

Some of these countries are holding a stable population because of migration. However, it seems as if women's priorities (at least according to the above reasons) are not necessarily geared towards having children. Spreading information about the dangers of low fertility rates, providing healthcare in the underdeveloped countries, and migration from overpopulated countries to underpopulated countries would help solve the problem.  

 

On 11/9/2018 at 10:55 AM, John Cuthber said:

If you don't understand this, you should ask...

 

It's clear enough that I'm talking about the pheromones.
And I asked how the pheromones reach the insects (and the answer is through the air).

And I also asked what stops the pheromones getting to the plants and the answer is obviously nothing.

The pheromones will reach the plants.

So, since in the real world, the pheromones reach the plants, it isn't sensible to say 

 

You may think I'm a bit blunt; even rude.
Perhaps I am, but did it not occur to you that it's also rude to post misleading nonsense like that?

Looking back at this conversation, I realized I was wrong about the initial answer I gave. I apologize.

 

On 11/9/2018 at 1:06 PM, Sensei said:

Absolute numbers (as almost always) don't matter as much as quantity per area unit, and quantity per human (consumer of plant) (significant majority of pesticides will be flushed and plant cleaned, but not to absolute zero *).

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

"The US used some 1 kg (2.2 pounds) per hectare of arable land compared with: 4.7 kg in China, 1.3 kg in the UK, 0.1 kg in Cameroon, 5.9 kg in Japan and 2.5 kg in Italy. Insecticide use in the US has declined by more than half since 1980 (.6%/yr), mostly due to the near phase-out of organophosphates. In corn fields, the decline was even steeper, due to the switchover to transgenic Bt corn.[30]"

i.e. GMO plants replaced normal plants, GMO were modified to be immune for attacking it microbes etc. thus pesticides are no longer needed (but seeds must be bought year-by-year, because they are made to be infertile).

 

*) so yet another variable is how efficient is plant cleaning up procedure..

 

I wasn't aware of the information in the first paragraph, thank you for sharing that.

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes, we now know that we can't really do it.
 

That's what happens AFTER the pheromones reach teh bugs.

I asked how the get there.

The answer is by diffusion through the air.

You have completely ignored my other question. I guess you realised it makes you look stupid.

 

"What stops them reaching the plants" isn't a valid question because it doesn't make sense. I suppose you mean to say, "What stops the insects from eating the crops" or "What stops the pheromones' exposure to the crops" but I can't tell because it's a vague question with poor grammar. 

Also, if you're going to be rude you can stop replying to my thread. I've been extremely patient with your snarky comments even after you seem to have missed the entire point of my paper, but I don't appreciate some guy on a forum trying to downgrade me simply because I didn't answer a question. Please keep it civil.

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How do they reach the insects?

What stops them reaching the plants?

To quote this article, "Pheromone-binding proteins (PBP) pick up pheromones at pores in the outside of the antenna and carry them through a watery layer to the nerve endings, where they are released." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020107075619.htm. 

3 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

How do they reach the insects?

What stops them reaching the plants?

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. That article refers to a laboratory scale sample of a few grams of soil.
OK, so the biggest supercritical fluid extractors treat about a ton at a time.
So, for a field 100 meters on each side and half a metre deep you would need 5000 extractions.

Perhaps you would like to calculate the cost (in energy and solvent) of doing that?

It's certainly not "A Practical Solution For Every Any Problem"

 

I am well aware that pesticide extraction is in it's infancy, I am simply pointing out that it is possible as a counter to your claim that it is impossible. We aren't able to do worldwide scales of extraction, but at least we're somewhere instead of nowhere.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

It IS a great thing, because if you went back and edited it now, the reponses wouldn't be accurate. Post your corrections in context now, and all will make sense, right?

Reaching high is different than having unrealistic expectations. Why aim for something that "probably won't happen" when you can reasonably expect to achieve a great deal of success without being so extreme about it? Don't set up an all-or-nothing scenario when you have a good idea, but rather try to get the best support you can.

 

That said, I don't agree with the premise. I'm a Humanist, and I still don't believe that humans should be considered "first and foremost above everything else". I would also disagree that the "well-being of the planet" is important. The well-being of the environments we share with all life is where we should focus our efforts in practical solutions.

I tend to be extreme because I'm trying to communicate the severity of the situation, I suppose. And yes, "the well-being of the planet" would translate into "the well-being of the environments inhabited by all life," because humans can only act in the environment in which they live. But human well-being is important as well, and striving towards that will circle back into keeping our environment healthy.

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is the same sort of hopeless naivety that doomed similar ideas like Rousseau's Social Contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

I think it would be more effective to look for practical solutions.

Well... Yeah. Only having a mindset won't do too much. But both need to be combined, or else I could say things like, "Fixing overpopulation is easy, just put a limit on each country and if the population is higher than what the limit states then deport them to another country... Or whatever you have to do."

 

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The concept seems to be too focused on generalities and maximums. Solving EVERY problem, 100% effectiveness, and the assumption that capitalists will be more concerned with their customer base than they are with profits. There are also several errors that need to be corrected (more solar, but we need to give up electricity?!). Perhaps the OP would like to amend the proposition, or admit it might be a touch overreaching?

For some reason I'm not allowed to edit the post anymore, which isn't too great because I want to change one paragraph in particular what was entirely miscommunicated.

My proposition is extremely overreaching. It requires the majority of the earth's population (especially those who are in charge of their sector of the world) to act with the premise that the well-being of the planet and the human being is first and foremost above everything else. This probably won't happen, but it needs to if we want future generations to live here because changes like the ones mentioned on this thread take a lot of time and a lot of resources to fully implement.

 

 

15 hours ago, Silvestru said:

Have you considered that some people cannot afford to eat all organic? I am part of the (lower?) middle class in my country and I honestly can't afford to eat organic bio clean etc food every day.

Of course I have. I know many people (including my own family) who are too poor to afford truly healthy food. In many of these cases (as with some of my friends) there are small budgeting changes that could be made if they wanted a healthy diet but they simply don't care about it. On the other hand, there are far too many people who want to eat healthily but simply can't afford to. This can potentially be fixed by what I'm about to suggest below. 

 

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

What if your backyard is in the Arctic?

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/03/31/news/how-grow-veggies-edge-arctic-circle

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSBRE92P0EX20130326

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/antarctica-greenhouse-dlr-german-aerospace-center-2017-9

15 hours ago, Strange said:

Not everyone has a backyard. Not everyone with space has the time or ability. 

Are such farming methods able to support the world’s growing population? Please support your answer with real data rather than wishful thinking. 

It would be lovely. But is it practical?

 

As of 2014 there are 570 million farms on the planet. 90% of them are family-owned, and family-owned farms produce 80% of the world's crops. However, 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are used every year to maintain these levels of production. This can change by implementing Sensei's idea, which is:

On 11/4/2018 at 9:34 PM, Sensei said:

In my opinion the best would be to build hermetic agricultural skyscrapers, 50+ floors, with hydroponics, monitored in the real-time, with robots and drones which will take care of plants. If microbes, fungi or bugs would appear in them, single floor could be easily decontaminated.

It is already being done, and if the crops are tended to properly then there is no need for pesticides or pheromones whatsoever. Also, there is enough open land to build such skyscrapers without needing to use what the farmers are already growing on. 

Biopesticides are already being used, and they're currently being used more and more in conventional farming as well as organic farming.

 

Sources:

https://www.globalagriculture.org/report-topics/industrial-agriculture-and-small-scale-farming.html

https://foodprint.org/issues/pesticides/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country

https://blog.epa.gov/2015/02/02/farmers-shift-towards-virtually-non-toxic-alternatives-for-pest-control/

https://articles.extension.org/pages/29380/biopesticides-for-plant-disease-management-in-organic-farming

 

20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not only is the production of sufficient food for humanity without the use of further pesticides impossible, there is no way to remove the pesticides that are already widespread in the environment- DDT is probably the best known example.


Incidentally, how did you come to the conclusion that pheromones are harmless to humans?
 

You can remove pesticides from the earth. It's been done. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138589470500063X

The pheromones don't make it onto the plants themselves. They're used in "pheromone traps" that are placed in or above the crop. If the pheromones were to reach the crop then it would be poisonous to humans if ingested, which I failed to communicate in my original statement.

 

 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedailystar.net/country/pheromone-trap-gaining-popularity-among-farmers-81030%3Famp

http://14.139.158.107:8081/Technologies/trap.html

http://ciks.org/old-site/sustainable.htm

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_G-102_11-Sep-25.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwizzLHBo8XeAhVHj1QKHX5ICqUQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2pAsjRWkMSKv0kquYz6EhJ&cshid=1541696911577

 

20 hours ago, Strange said:

While many life-saving medicines are "unnatural".

This paper focuses on solutions for certain issues that threaten the long-term survival of our species. Immediate matters of life and death is a different beast, because 50 years of eating the right food and getting the right amount of exercise won't save your life if you become critically injured and need special attention.

 

10 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

And many common drugs are improved versions of natural products (because the originals were not good enough)

The same is true of many foods,

It's almost as if some natural things- like senility and death are not all that wonderful.

We wouldn't need so many of these drugs if we took care of our bodies before turning 50. Sure, there are always people who get sick/hurt and have no fault in the matter, but I know plenty of people in their 50s-80s who are in no pain whatsoever because they cared about themselves when they were younger and made it a habit to eat healthy food, get plenty of exercise, maintain proper posture, build and maintain a healthy immune system, etc. Prevention is the best cure.

https://www.everydayhealth.com/hypertension/preventing.aspx

https://medlineplus.gov/howtopreventhighbloodpressure.html

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/cancer-prevention/art-20044816

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dementia/dementia-prevention/

https://medlineplus.gov/howtopreventheartdisease.html

https://www.iofbonehealth.org/preventing-osteoporosis

Etc...

 

On 11/5/2018 at 10:26 PM, John Cuthber said:

 

That's impossible 

Well, not exactly. There are ways for everyone to eat healthy food for the rest of their lives such as growing in their backyards and buying food from farms that use pheromones or perform crop rotations instead of using pesticides. If all of us started to avoid pesticides then the farms who use them will be forced to think of an alternative method because they will not have any sales. The idea is to create an alternative that is, actually, healthy for the planet and the human body while still being 100% effective at the same time.

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Fair point, but the OP's post is impossible.

It's not impossible. It requires a dramatic change in lifestyle, and it will be a change that takes many years to fully implement, but if everybody in charge of the world acted from the premise I've mentioned above then there would definately be a chance for our survival (healthy survival no less). 

 

 

 

9 hours ago, Sensei said:

In my opinion the best would be to build hermetic agricultural skyscrapers, 50+ floors, with hydroponics, monitored in the real-time, with robots and drones which will take care of plants. If microbes, fungi or bugs would appear in them, single floor could be easily decontaminated.

If overpopulation won't be prevented, future human generations won't be able to enjoy the real food, but e.g. artificial meat (aka "cultured meat", "clean meat"), artificial organic compounds, will be the only option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultured_meat

It's possible to make microorganisms (GMO) which will make the all needed for human proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, etc. and culture them instead of the real animals and the real plants. Animals on the farms won't suffer anymore (and won't even exist (only in ZOO), as not needed anymore).

Overpopulation isn't an easy beast to slay. Everybody would need to be conscious of the fact that it's happening and take action against it, but I only see a small minority doing so. However, agricultural skyscrapers combined with GMO is a good idea to fix this problem only if we stop having so many children.

Another idea is to have each (abled) adult grow enough food for themself and one other throughout their life. If everybody (or even almost everybody) did this we could feed the mouths that are already here while focusing on having less children at the same time.

 

 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Fossil fuels are natural, so this does not fit into your thesis. (what is natural vs unnatural is often poorly defined, as it is in this case)

Further, solar, wind and hydro typically generate electricity, so you can't have them and "step away" from electricity.

Thank you for pointing that out. It won't let me edit the post anymore but I changed it in my notes to fix this oversight:

This would also mean eating genuinely healthy food (food without pesticides, hormones, or anything that would cause harm to the human body), emitting no polution into the air, using less of our natural resources (let alone misuse them), etc. Anything we do as a species that affects us in unnatural and unhealthy ways must be redirected in the other direction.

This can work by fully converting to solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy, and hydro-power, and fully stepping away from fossil fuels and overuse of natural resources.

 

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Have you been reading Roosevelt's four freedoms speech ?

No, but after reading it I see the similarities between his speech and my paper. However, he tends to say "Freedom is what we're looking towards," and I tend to say, "Here is how we can live on this planet long term while in good health."

Also, I figured it would belong in philosophy because it's an idea that a premise should be introduced into the subjective experience as the primary filter for manifesting actions into the physical world. 

The goal of this paper is to provide a pragmatic solution to every problem we experience on our planet today.

The idea is very simple. Everything we do should be done from the premise of, "I genuinely want what is best for myself and the planet." This means doing everything within the power of the individual to genuinely strive towards manifesting their "higher self" into this world.

Practically speaking, this would mean forgiving anybody who has wronged you; spending more time with your children; travelling to the coast; taking that new job; starting a new hobby; learning about a new subject; standing up to whoever makes you feel guilty; confronting whoever makes you fearful, etc. The goal is to ask yourself the question, "What can I do to genuinely treat myself with self-interest," and do whatever it is you need to do to be your true self. If you act from this premise then you will have taken a step towards aligning with your best self.

This would also mean eating genuinely healthy food (food without pesticides, hormones, or anything that would cause harm to the human body), emitting no polution into the air, using less of our natural resources (let alone misuse them), using very little if any electricity, etc. Anything we do as a species that is unnatural to ourselves and/or the planet must be redirected in the other direction.

This can work by fully converting to solar power, wind energy, geothermal energy, and hydro-power, and fully stepping away from fossil fuels and eventually electricity.

Spiritually speaking, this would mean gaining a basic understanding of our astrology charts, fully accepting, feeling, and healing our unaligned states of emotion and mind, perhaps taking psychedelics, and maintaining our best selves through consistancy of healthy behavior. More specific behaviors would depend on the individual.

If everybody completely aligned with their highest self then all of us would be living in a physically and spiritually healthy manner. It is also worth noting that we don't need to worry about anybody but ourselves in this endeavor, because the only person who can change ourselves can't change other people. However, self-change can be inspirational to others, and that will move other people to change more than anything else we can do

When this eventually happens I see a planey that has clean air and serves genuinely healthy food. Our cars will be replaced with vehicles that run on green energy, and we'll be using 100% natural packaging and bottling. Corporations won't fight for the customer's money but will instead be concerned about their well-being. People will care about other people because they care for themselves, and children will be brought up in a free environment. Emotional misery will be a thing of the past because we will have time and desire to study and nurture all types of emotion. Pharmaceutical supplements will be healthy instead of destructive. The government won't be an authority but a place to get help should we need it. The planet will be a place to grow and develop instead of industrialize and produce, and the people will be absolutely nurtured and content instead of mistreated and deprived.

All of the above (and more) can be achieved if our species put the well-being of the planet and the subjective experience as our first and foremost priority at all times.