What If...A New Global Option Part 1

[squidcreek]

"If global leaders..when people are ready:"

What I meant by this was that 'leaders' in the world can claim that mankind has failed to achieve harmony with the world and is on a course towards self-destruction. They could use this presumption to enforce more control and restriction on peoples rights. How do they know that's not what's stunting their very development and causing the problems, in a cyclical way? Maybe they intend it! Anyway, I didn't plan on a debate. This is youtube!

[squidcreek]

My problem with the global strategy that exists today if there is one is that it seems to bring out the worst in people at the wrong time. If it is a test to show how weak we are when put under stresses and strain, so that we can learn to handle such stresses and strains in the future, then the logic is flawed, as it doesn't account for the change in evolutionary development that would better equip us to triumph over such tests. I think it's better to leave it to destiny.

[kmarinas86]

"if there is one is that it seems to bring out the worst in people at the wrong time"

Death? Famine? Destruction?

If you did not mention any of these specifically, then you have no idea what you are talking about.

[squidcreek]

That's an oversimplified way of looking at it.If you're so sure. Bring famine upon yourself for a while and see if it makes a good experiment.

[kmarinas86]

squidcreek: "e^ = change in evolutionary state of that person"

Explain how this is scientific.

[squidcreek]

I never said it was. You put that word there. I'd have called it shorthand. People are changing and it's quite possibly stunted mutation rather than natural evolution at the genetic level for the most part. You can read up on genetics papers if you're interested, but really common sense often suffices (least it did).

A man could adapt to develop innate evil to con his adversaries and live another day, just as he could develop a sixth/seventh sense to understand nature in more advanced ways,

[squidcreek]

Is it more complicated than I thought?

If I put a huge flock of birds in a dark cave for a few million years, and assuming they thrived, their eyes in all probability would have adapted to the new low light, or they would have evolved some simple radar - whatever it took to survive.

If you are not careful when considering the environment, it won't matter..

[kmarinas86]

Ok, let me see if I understand you.

"If global leaders decide that e = too low at this time to deal with the tests posed by nature, then what does that mean? It means nothing. Nature will decide when one is to be tested. That test may come far into the future at a time when people are ready:"

So basically you're saying that people's evolution should catch up with their technology, and that Hi-Tech is counterproductive if people are not nice. So "destiny" would have it, for better or worse?

[squidcreek]

Let's assume that:

e = evolutionary state of a person

e^ = change in evolutionary state of that person

If global leaders decide that e = too low at this time to deal with the tests posed by nature, then what does that mean? It means nothing. Nature will decide when one is to be tested. That test may come far into the future at a time when people are ready:

e + e^ = sufficient level of human evolution to cope with tests from nature, ..or not. Destiny should decide.

[squidcreek]

Furthermore, e^ doesn't necessarily mean positive change at all. The way humans live in the world today is backwards. People don't live according to their genetic makeup. This means that future evolution may be stunted by the current path - mutation. One size most certainly does not fit all. If society continues down this path, people will end up behind the apes, if not already. Instead of amateur science fares, we have people fighting bare knuckle in octagonal cages. We can prevent Mad Max now

[squidcreek]

I will say no more on this matter except to say that: If there is a force at work trying to shape humanity, it is trying to destroy humanity, a pointless endeavor. Any idiot can step on a sand castle but few can make a really ornate looking one.

[blackwhimsy]

Still hard to believe John Denver is dead.I just thought he'd always be around.A bit like Mother Earth really.:-( Take it for granted,and before you know it,it's gone.

[Earthsupport]

Video was completed, 10 Nov. 1989, Sydney, Australia (See Part 2). The intro by John Denver was recorded in the northern beaches, Sydney. (I remember picking him up from his house nearby.) John had a great love for Buckminster Fuller. Robert Kiyosaki was also inspired by Bucky. There is a video clip of the song, "See the World in You", written for the video launch in Sydney. After this, I worked with Robert on a second documentary, "Our Children's Future, in Our Hands". (Anatole Kononewsky).

[Jamazio]

Yes, I think that was Terry Lipman's balcony!

[tomterahedrob]

yeah!its great to see in past few months on YOU TUBE stuff onBucky has exploded from 3 short clips to what is here now.this man far more than Al Gore deserves the Nobel Prize for he has invented smart sustainable solutions that benefit us all!

[bytebutler]

Great Introduction by John Denver talking about how Buckminster Fuller's idea along with all the rest of us working in cooperation, we can solve global issues!