I disagree. Greed is a emotional need which appears when someone is hurt and insecure. You are using thinking to achive your goals but goal is purely emotional.
Unless you’re generalising the causes of greed, you have to reconsider. When I’m being or feeling greedy it’s usually NOT because I’m hurt or insecure.
Food is a good example nowadays. Yes, people overeat for various reasons, but if you look at overeating due to greed, then some people do it because they like the food, and so eat more. They enjoy the food, so they eat more. Where is the emotion in that?
Ugh, sometimes I wish English had more distinctions between things. Greed is a feeling, perhaps, but not an emotion in the sense that it’s related to feeling functions.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Suggesting that it’s related to F, though, would imply that people who prefer feeling would have more moments of greediness than others (regardless of whether they act upon them). And I think that’s BS.
I see that people are taking this this thread purely as philosophical argument but it was not designed to be just that.
I’m going to take a stab in the dark and say it was probably because it sounds as though you think part of the solution to make the current world better is a shift towards the majority having a slight preference for thinking. Which is simply not going to happen. This is why I’ve approached this as though it were all a hypothetical scenario.
Disregarding that whole ‘preference for thinking’ part though, you present a very interesting question: How are people going to make it through the next few hundred years? My guess would be not very well. I think you could construct and perfect solutions for years, but they simply will not be practical in any sort of large-scale implementation.
They want it so that they can spend it or to get more influence. What is again a form of entertainment.
What I am saying is that our most basic need do not fit the reality we are living in and if we don't start to make more decision on statistics and hard science we will have some serious problems.
Okay, fair point.
Here is a amall part of one of my big posts and I have more of this kinds of arguments but I think this one hits the point.
How would you solve this one?
But parents don’t die when they have children so when you have 2 parents with 2 children you are not at 0 you have 100% increase. The point is not that we will decrease number with time the point is that we are spending more then it can be produced/ regenerated and we are destroying the system by our actions.
In about 2 years from now there will be 7 billion people on this planet. So let’s say that in the next 10 years billion women and billion man will have children. If they have only one child we will have another billion and there is no way that everybody will have just one. Of course old and smaller generations die but world still has a strong surplus.
In a case that we get 1.5 billion of new people and about 0.5 billion dies as old (generation is smaller) we will get an extra billion.
One billion divided in 10(years) = 100 000 000 extra every year. Divide that with 365 and you get about 270 000 per day. What means that you need to build 270 elementary schools for 1000 children each day just to get the most basic education for those children. Not to mention high schools and colleges and place for a job. This is simplified but it is obvious where this leads us.
Plus we are in the middle of global economic crisis, energy crisis and crisis of food and fresh water. I think that forming a logical conclusion about this is really not that hard.
Alright, I’m going to ignore the 20% T bit because, again, there’s no point hypothesising about that when it won’t actually happen, and your main aim is to think up realistic, or at least feasible, solutions.
I’m not sure this is one of the problems you can fix by simply patching it up with duct tape. This is more the kind of problem where you have to chuck out half of what you have and start again.
As it is, the world already has too many people if you’re looking at it from a purely sustainable aspect. The only way that people are going to be sustainable on a large scale is if there are less people.
So I can’t solve that one. I don’t think anyone can.