Jedi Sentinel Findings

@ RedKing: We've already talked about this in chat but let me repeat it here too. Its not our race that is greedy and selfish. We only represent our culture. Its good that you called us takers therefore your culture is the taker culture. This is actually good news. That means we dont have to change humanity we just have to change our culture.

@ Sajjad: Good points all around my friend. The people of our culture are the hardest working people on the planet by choice. You could give them the answer to life the universe and everything! The answer would be 42. But instead of being happy that we have the answers the first thing we'd do is question it. Thank you for mentioning the rule of life by the way. I already talked about it in "The ABCs of ecology" but i'll post it again at the bottom of this post.


@ Francois: You've made some very good points. I'd like to talk about just a few of them. Indeed we have become disharmonic but its not because of our early cave man roots. Any time that a new species appears on the planet a different species becomes extinct. Its nature, it happens all the time for 2 reasons. The New species prays on the old or the new species is faster or more efficient at getting the food it needs that the old species dies out.
Other than that your right on target. Thanks for sharing with us.


The Rule of Life
You may engage in limited competition but you may not wage war on each other. You can compete but you must not hunt down and kill off your enemy. You may not keep your enemy from food or tamper with their food.

It has always been through numbers, mechanical and intellectual aptitude that we have survived the jungle out there. This advantage means its not an even playing field, and we no longer have a place in the biosphere because we are not playing by the rules. Humanity is too far advanced for this planet with the exception of pathological vulnerabilities leading to self destruction. The most complex, say even refined, form of self destruction is when you destroy everything around you leaving yourself to last, and this is what humanity is getting better at doing.

If we were looking in from the outside and a species developed which was dominate enough to, would you let it destroy its world.... or would you destroy it, or perhaps move it somewhere else where it was not able to dominate to the point of destruction?

Is the conflict of competition the compassionate path? I would not want humans to compete for the right to survive so I dislike that the animal kingdom is limited to such barbarity... but we can do nothing about that, yet.

We are the ones destroying others, so we are still playing at that game of competition but we are playing unopposed and to a different rule book. Its just we elevate ourselves as a species to higher importance then other species. Basically humans are feeding off this planet, without competition and therefore I consider it a parasitic relationship.

We've survived this far by using our advantage, but it doesn't mean we'll keep on surviving. I think as a species we seek compassionate comfort. So how do we work, play, eat and sleep safely and productively in high order species with finite resources. We either go get more resources or learn how to use the ones we have more efficiently.

I actually believe looking backwards potentiates the very problem being discussed. Historically life was bad, not good. Its just our numbers were so small that the impacts were limited to small areas, but as population increases we need to realize those same destructive habits are amplified and now local is global. Living like we did in the past, in the numbers we now, have will just make things worse IMO.

Often times the best way to move forward is know where it is you want to end up, and then just join the dots to find a direction.... so I think each planet does have a maximum number of humans it can support. Lifeless rocks could have more, compared to delicate complex ecosystems which might have very few or even none.

Often the immediate reaction to space immigration is about how going to space will make us trash space.... and yes this needs to be considered carefully and managed but in itself is not a reason not to do it. Especially when the other option is complete annihilation of the biosphere of this planet leading to inevitable space exploration anyway (if humans still exist at that point), or birth controls to limit population growth. So I discount birth control as unethical, which leaves me with two options;

1. stay on Earth longer destroying it more and going to space eventually, just later, or
2. leave Earth as soon as possible to minimize damage to Earth.

For me the answer is obviously choice 2, but if doing so destroys the Earth then it defeats the point. So I dont think we should rush it, but a real focus needs to be sought globally... a non-military space race might focus progress somewhat, perhaps commercial space mining.

Of course the very concept should seem ludicrous to starving people in the third world but the issue I'm discussing is survival of the planets biosphere including the human species, and not the individual welfare of all people. One of the problems of making more people more wealthy and healthy is that it tends to increase the birth rates and population even more dramatically which speeds up the damage to the planets biosphere. While procreation is an instinctual easy source of pleasure for at least the male gender, its occurance throughout all economic levels does not point to the increase in populations with wealth due to improved survival during childbirth and raising children due to health and medical access. Not helping the poor though is a defacto type of birth control, which I've already stated I consider unethical - not to mention that not alleviating suffering when its possible, is borderline criminal IMO. So I think my point is we seriously need to incorporate space immigration into our near term future asap.

Ignorance to these issues will be our biggest long term threat because as wealth increases, so does security; and once a human feels secure it might lose its instinctual drive to achieve progress - leading to a slump into an apathetic and insular state of wealth as self, where preservation of wealth becomes central to our existence. The capitalist system facilitates this but it is probably consumerism which causes it and where fault might lie. The third world wants what the first world has got, but what does the first world want and what should it want?

There are times when I think a complete loss of technology would benefit the world much more than anything else...without technology we would have to readapt to living with nature instead of dominating it...and it would cause natural selection to be the deciding factor in births not medicine....as a species natural selection is key to survival...it prevents genetic weaknesses from being passed on thus strengthening a species...sounds cold...but then again nature can be cold and brutal...

Is that complete removal or sudden shutdown of technology?

Awhile ago I was wondering if technology has stunted our evolutionary growth.

no. soon enough, technology will guide our evolutionary growth in the form of gene manipulation. no one can say if this will be a beneficial tech until we try it large scale tho.

It seems to me that population control is becoming a major priority if we want to solve the problem. The world’s population will likely reach 9.2 billion in 2050. Here are some possible solutions I found.

Laws

One way for a country or other ruling authoritative body to control population growth is to institute laws that prohibit high fertility. China, for instance, is well known for instituting a "one child policy" which makes it illegal for urban couples to have more than one child. Using regulations to control population in this manner is often frowned upon, and requires a governing body with supreme authority over its people, but it can be very effective.

Contraception

Another important way to limit population growth is to increase the rate of contraception among the population. Contraception, while not infallible, drastically reduces fertility rates, often with minimal expense. While contraception and education about using contraception is widely available in rich countries, people in poor countries may not have access to simple contraceptive methods like condoms, or even know what they are. Not only can poor nations in areas like Africa and southeast Asia benefit from the fertility control aspect of contraception, but condoms can also help prevent the spread of STDs like AIDS, which is an epidemic in many poor nations.

Economics

Economics plays a vital role in determining population growth. Countries that are well developed tend to have lower population growths and are more urbanized, with a higher cost of living, while poor countries are more rural with a lower cost of living. When the cost of having a child is extremely high, it deters parents from having more than a couple of kids. When the costs of raising children are low, such as they are in rural areas where they may contribute greatly to work on a farm, families have a much greater incentive to have babies. Encouraging economic development and urbanization in less developed countries may eventually lead to lower population growth.

Considerations

While not designed for population control, there are several other factors which tend to limit population growth. Wars are one factor which plays a large role in limiting population growth. Since soldiers are typically able bodied men, any combat deaths are likely to decrease population growth. Controlling population is a very controversial subject, and many consider education and making contraception available, but not forcing its use to be the only acceptable way to promote population control. Even if birth rates can be controlled to a mere replacement rate (every couple has two kids, replacing the mother and father) increasing sophistication of health care has lead to an increase in life expectancies, which has further increased the size of world populations.

@Adder: Your reply is very long but well thought out. I'm impressed. ok Man hasn't always used numbers and mechanical to survive the jungle but it has always used intellectual aptitude. Your right! Our mechanical advantage isn't fair. This is because our technology has turned off(exempt us) the negative feedback of nature.
But again its not humanity that is the problem its our one culture. There are humans out there that live well within the biosphere. Now animals dont compete for the right to survive either. The live amongst on another. Its humans that compete for the right to survive. We prove this by wagging war on each other. If we knew what animals thought I doubt they view them selves as barbaric. I wouldn't suggest leaving earth because one its our home and two; if we still haven't learned how to live on earth what makes us think we can live any place else in a less destructive way?

@RyuJin: a complete loss of technology would solve a lot of problems but it wouldn't solve the technology problem. That is our technology isn't going anywhere. Our cities will still be here even if we leave them. In stead lets "invent" a new way to live that makes our technology work for the planet.

@Francois: Now your talking my language! :woohoo:
Laws: would be a good idea if we haven't tried it already. Its already been tried but not just with over population but with all sort of things. No amount of law making ever stopped the behavior it was made to control. If the whole world used China's laws than there would be groups of people that reject this ONE WORLD RULE.

Contraception: Is once again something thats already been tried. Lots of countries have them and the population rate hasn't even slowed. The do help prevent the spread of STD though.

Considerations: Your on the right track with this one. How ever wars would only take a small chunk of the population down it wouldn't stop the rate at which it increases. Education also hasn't worked because both types of education have already been used. Parents have tried teaching kids about sex and other parents have tried keeping information about sex hidden and still the population just keeps on growing.

@All: It seems like I'm just being negative but I'm really not. This is just stuff thats already been done year after year. How about we try something that no one would dare try?

Control the amount of food we make

Thank you Master Daniel. I am learning a great deal through these educational posts. It seems that we have to start a major campaign on overpopulation. It is time we talk about the real problem impacting our environment. We've done it recently with the environment. Everyone wants to save it and do their part. It is present in daily household conversations. "Save the environment". But the real problem is overpopulation, yet no one is disscussing overpopulation. We don't want to admit the real problem or find real solutions. It is time that "Stop overpopulation" becomes the new buzz word. Thoughts like look what overpopulation is doing to our planet have to resonate in our daily consciousness.

In my opinion we have to start campaining now and start implementing real solutions before it's too late. Suzy Mchale believes that if we do not find real solutions soon, we will be forced to implement radical solutions latter.

For example we can legalize euthanasia. Will it solve the problem, not even close but it's a start. I found a site by Suzy Mchale for those interested to learn more about this very important subject.

suzymchale.com/overpop.html

I'm glad to hear it Francois. Let me expand on what you said.

Overpopulation is a REAL problem. Now if that meteor never hits, if the title waves never rise, if the earthquakes never start, if the volcanoes never erupt, if the aliens never come, if the wars dont finish us off.....Over population will!

All the other stuff i mentioned is stuff that might happen. Over population is what will happen because it already is happening and will continue to happen so long as we keep doing the same thing year after year.

My apprentice and I will be talking about stuff like this and more in a new thread.

http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Stories

Meet us there and we'll try to find a solution together.

Its a late night and I cant sleep so I felt I would talk a little about my meet up with Plokoon(Paul). It wont be to detailed becaue im half asleep. :S I just need to at least acknowledge this meet up before I pass out.

The meeting was between Sikik(J.R) my apprentice, Plo Koon(Paul), and my self. We met in Tucson Arizona at the Good Egg restaurant.

I cant say that I was thinking very much when I met Paul. My mind was pretty much blank until we sat down.

I must admit that I was so nervous, not because I was meeting a temple member for the first time, because Paul was so calm and ready.(From what I could tell)
It didn't take long for me to see that this person in front of me was an experienced human. I'm not to sure how to explain that but it was very different from how I currently am. I dont doubt that in time I'll be like that.
I'm grateful that Sikik was able to come with us. He's a much better conversationalist than I am. I would have made things very awkward if he wasn't there to aid the conversation. Any time that the conversation lost some steam he was right there to pick it backup again. He was also more in control than I was. The both of them made the whole thing really easy and for that I'm grateful.

Lets see...we talked about a lot of things its difficult to remember it all. What I can remember is that Paul had some really cool business cards for TOTJO.

I might talk more about it later. All in all I'm glad we did this and I can only hope that I get to meet more of you someday. :blush: