a) That would be tampering with the evidence and divine justice forbids. — unenlightened

What divine justice? How do you know that there is a "divine justice"? What about everything that has ever happened is just?

The only objective reality, in my view, is the ever-changing present moment. — punos

I think the ever-changing present moment is a subjective reality because this is what we experience, nanosecond by nanosecond. How can this be objective?

I agree.

At the moment, private ownership exists. I agree that if no one owned anything, no one would be in a position to share anything. I don't think those who own lots would agree to ban private ownership and ban money. That would take away their privileges and luxuries.

Good ideas in principle, but in practice, these are difficult. I have seen much corruption that increases suffering, inequality, injustice, and death on Earth.

Suffering is evidently reduced by medicine or psychology, inequality by distribution, injustice by justice, and death is reduced by healthy, peaceful living. — jkop

I see your points. How do we ensure those who need the medical or psychological treatments get them? How do we distribute resources evenly amid so much inequality? How do we replace injustice with justice? How do we get people to live healthy and peaceful lives?

Thank you for the link to the interesting article.

I do not think it’s possible to minimise suffering on global or personal level. — kindred

I am sorry to hear that.

You would be permitted to have children if and only if you performed some legendary task of heroics or invented something society-changing or happened to be selected by random lottery. It was a privilege one earned voted on by those who proved their worth and intellect, not a right. — Outlander

Thank you for your reply. Which society had the above rule?

I understand. Thank you.

Thank you for your reply. Why would an Artificial General Intelligence care about living things?

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible for people to become millionaires and billionaires if they have been charitable their entire lives. So, the billionaires who have donated billions were not always donating.

Why are we still talking about this in this thread when https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15216/how-can-we-reduce-suffering-inequality-injustice-and-death was created to discuss it?

You keep ignoring my points. My points remain true even if you keep ignoring them instead of acknowledging them.

We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities.
— Truth Seeker

If the world was a moral place place there would be no charities, they would not be needed. — Sir2u

I agree.

This is not working. We are doing unimaginably better than in the past and can either agree with than or defend what appears to be your notion that great progress has not been made. How could you possibly know most billionaires are not generous? The answer to that question requires how you got that information. How can you know more about "them" than you know about me? — Athena

Most of the humans who are currently alive are doing much better in terms of standards of living than most of the humans who were alive 10,000 or 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,000 or 500 or 250 or 100 or even 50 years ago. However, inequality is at its worst in terms of the disparity in the standards of living of the richest 0.001% compared with the poorest 0.001%.

I only know about billionaires what is publicly available. Please see: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires

But how generous are the super-rich, really? Not very, according to Forbes’ research. The members of the 2023 Forbes 400 list have collectively given more than $250 billion to charity, by our count—less than 6% of their combined net worth.

I am quoting from:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/phoebeliu/2023/10/03/the-forbes-philanthropy-score-2023-how-charitable-are-the-richest-americans/

How can someone become a billionaire if they have been donating most of their income throughout their life? How could a human become even a millionaire (i.e. have USD 1,000,000 in their bank account and/or own assets of this value) if they donated most of their annual net income, never mind a billionaire? It's impossible.

So how do you intend to govern such a process? How would you deal with those who would not surrender their land? How would you manage the wars and terrorism that would arise as a consequence?

How would you manage the world government of millions of displaced people who have to move around with their families so that they can get their plot of land? How would you manage the gaps in manufacturing industries all over the world, created by mass migrations of people? — Tom Storm

I can only ask people to share. I realise that those who have may not want to share with those who do not have. I am not going to do anything to those who don't surrender excess (i.e. greater than 1.95 acres) land. I can't implement my policy of sharing.

In the extremely unlikely event that everyone accepts my policy, to minimize disruption, we could make land ownership local to where one already is. So, if you are already living in Lagos, the global government will try to give you land in Lagos. I realise that this won't always be possible.

In my ideal world, all living things would be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and would own an infinite number of universes each. There would be no suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in my ideal world. Sadly, we don't live in my ideal world.

I don't live with my parents.

I will support it. I will give up my land to gain an equal share of the 15.77 billion acres of habitable land divided by 8.1 billion humans currently alive which is 1.95 acres per human.

We could calculate the total habitable land area on Earth and divide it by the number of humans and give each one an equal share of the habitable land. This would be an example of sharing. This would eliminate inequality in how much land each human have.

I agree.

Yes, by "money" I mean "currency". Is there a difference between money and currency? English is my second language so I may have missed any nuance between the two words.

Surely, sharing would work everywhere?
— Truth Seeker

No. — Tom Storm

Please explain why sharing wouldn't work everywhere in the universe.

I like that but I think money is natural and we should just reform the system. — Barkon

Humans didn't always have money. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money Humans have been around 200,000 years and money has been around only 30,000 years. I think we can do without it if we have transparency and accountability so that people don't hoard more than their fair share of resources.

Effective solutions tend to be culturally specific and co-designed by the people effected. What works in the USA would probably not work in Finland, say. — Tom Storm

Surely, sharing would work everywhere?

Thank you for your reply. I support free education. In fact, I support free everything. Let's ban money and let's ban private ownership. Let's have collective equal ownership of everything. The whole world should be one egalitarian and democratic country where religions are separate from the global government. Everyone should receive according to their needs and contribute according to their abilities.

To stay on topic you might pick a moment in history when animals were slaughtered and rewrite that history, telling us how the world would be better if our past had been better. We can do a lot with a discussion like that. :grin: — Athena

We have indeed veered off-topic. So, I have created this new thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15216/how-can-we-reduce-suffering-inequality-injustice-and-death

I agree. We as a species spend much more on weapons than we do on charities.

Not convinced. Time doesn't exist on its own. It exists as spacetime.

If we are so good at saving people from famine and war why have so many people died from famines and wars? Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

Here are the billionaires who give away the most money, according to Forbes
Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett has a lifetime giving of $56.7 billion. ...
Bill Gates and Melinda French Gates. ...
George Soros. ...
Michael Bloomberg. ...
MacKenzie Scott. ...
Jim and Marilyn Simons. ...
Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan. ...
Steve and Connie Ballmer.

We are biologically programmed to care about others. That comes with being a social animal. — Athena

Have you looked at https://inequality.org/facts/wealth-inequality ? I know that some billionaires are generous but most are not. If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place.

The other problems of suffering. inequality and injustice, are a matter of technology and education. — Athena

Did you look at https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/kill-counter and https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality ? We slaughter more sentient organisms than ever before. Global inequality keeps growing. The rich get richer and the poor die out.

How is it negative?

if I asked you 'how long did it take you to make this post', you would then express a relation to time, '10 seconds', from your own perspective of its negativity. — Barkon

I agree that I can measure how much time it takes to do something but how is that negative? 10 seconds is just an amount of time.

Those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have. So sad.

The only thing we do with time is relate to it. — Barkon

I have never related to time. In what way do you relate to time?

Time is definitely negative, and there is a relationship between the negative and the positive. — Barkon

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain how time is negative.

That's so interesting. Thank you for sharing your insights about time. According to physicists, time is not on its own, it exists as spacetime.

Yes, the Replicators in Star Trek can make almost everything. Sadly, it's fiction. We don't have an implementable solution to the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death.

That's wise. Thank you for sharing.

Heck, many wives can't even get their husbands to help with housework and child care. I do not see egalitarianism coming any time soon. Also, I work a lot and I don't others willing to do that. I don't think a free ride brings out the best in people. A better society means every child is well cared for and has the advantages that enable him/her to be the best s/he can be. I am willing to focus on that, but that is not making people equal. — Athena

I see your point. In that case, how do we solve the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death?