Get in great shape, build an arsenal, build a bunker and stock it with stuffs, etc.

Naw, I’m fucking kidding. Have a beer, smoke a joint, snort some OxyContin, play a little Muddy Waters ...

Whatever makes the pain go away.

In the words of viktor frankl
“Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.”
So as long as we don't lose hope we should be fine. Yes, I know how hard that might be.

You seem nice

Whatever makes the pain go away. — Noah Te Stroete

And so it all comes back to this. Pleasure in the short term. Hedonism without the work of creating the world of a hedonist.

I don't see myself ever being happy just sitting back and waiting. I've seen too many smart people do that and face the consequences.

I suppose if you can relax, you probably should.

So as long as we don't lose hope we should be fine. Yes, I know how hard that might be. — hachit

It seems that is our first hurdle. A psychological disposition to give up when odds are low. It turns out that giving up is a bad idea when what you are giving up is everything.

If there is one big disaster we can point to that is approaching, it's probably something that is already manifesting in the form of small changes and problems in the world. I think all we can do is try to anticipate and prepare for those specific instances. So I guess I'm saying you have to name the specific problem before you can come up with a specific solution.

I think what causes many problems is that individual humans make choices at the expense of others/the environment, and they don't intend to mend the damage they caused. I'm generalizing, but I also think people that hurt other living things for personal gain are only comfortable doing so because they are selfish or bitter. It's a lack of love. Many times I think the community fails in raising them to be good people. So I think the best we can do to reduce the number of people that grow up to make selfish decisions is to take responsibility for showing love and respect to everyone in arm's reach. The more people that do that, the more that impulse will spread over time.

That's what I think.

And so it all comes back to this. Pleasure in the short term. Hedonism without the work of creating the world of a hedonist.

I don't see myself ever being happy just sitting back and waiting. I've seen too many smart people do that and face the consequences.

I suppose if you can relax, you probably should. — TogetherTurtle

I’m sorry but I don’t see any solutions to an impossible situation. Hug your loved ones is all I can say.

A disaster is coming in the near future. No preparations have been made yet. What changes do you look into or technologies do you invest in? What political, social, economic, or even biological changes do we need to make to our planet? What do we do to make sure we can keep fighting it after the effects come into full swing? How do we evacuate the planet if necessary or create proper defenses underground? — TogetherTurtle

I am a little confused. Are we talking a rather minor disaster? Anything that results in societal collapse (ie no more governments), would make these questions no longer matter...? When struggling to survive, one does not have much time for philosophy. I think I mis-interpreted your hypothetical (non)scenario?

You mention investment? Like planting crops that will bear fruit in a few months? You don't mean like stocks or banking right? I definitely misunderstood the scenario.

a good groundwork for reconstruction after a global disaster is generally a good idea. — TogetherTurtle

I can get past the specific disaster, but I think we need some idea of who survives. 6 billion? 4 billion? 1 billion? 1 million? Dozens? Do some governments still exist? Corporations?

But maybe I am trying to answer something that you are not asking? Feel free to steer me in the right direction.

It seems that is our first hurdle. A psychological disposition to give up when odds are low. It turns out that giving up is a bad idea when what you are giving up is everything. — TogetherTurtle

Nicely said. Fortunately, there are examples everywhere of humans making the best of terrible situations. I have heard many stories where I initially thought, "nope. I would just roll-over and die." But the more of those stories I hear, the more I believe many people possess some trait that will cause them to fight on (and even enjoy themselves occasionally).

I’m sorry but I don’t see any solutions to an impossible situation. — Noah Te Stroete

And what you see is all there is to see, I'm sure.

I am a little confused. Are we talking a rather minor disaster? Anything that results in societal collapse (ie no more governments), would make these questions no longer matter...? When struggling to survive, one does not have much time for philosophy. I think I mis-interpreted your hypothetical (non)scenario? — ZhouBoTong

I think in my attempt to avoid a conversation about climate change I failed to direct a conversation on rebuilding a shattered world better than it was before. By investing I more meant what solutions via technology would you put faith in.

You make a good point that there is no room for higher thinking when immediate survival is a must. I think that's why we should do the thinking now.

I can get past the specific disaster, but I think we need some idea of who survives. 6 billion? 4 billion? 1 billion? 1 million? Dozens? Do some governments still exist? Corporations? — ZhouBoTong

I really think it depends on how bad it gets. I also think we would need different plans for different scenarios. So do A if X happens, do B if Y happens, etc. No one knows when the meteor we didn't see is going to hit us or how fast sea levels might rise.

I think that you could have a general set of rules to prepare for anything, but specifics are really up to the disaster. Rationing food, for example, is something that would be needed regardless of the degree or type of disaster. It would also be nice to have some sort of central authority on this kind of stuff. I don't know about you but I don't count the UN. They aren't great about the whole "authority" thing. I think that's why most discussions about regulating industrial waste don't go anywhere.

So as long as we don't lose hope we should be fine. Yes, I know how hard that might be.
— hachit

It seems that is our first hurdle. A psychological disposition to give up when odds are low. It turns out that giving up is a bad idea when what you are giving up is everything. — TogetherTurtle

Hope is mistakenly viewed as something to lose, in the past or in the present, when it’s really a matter of being aware of the potential of where we can go, despite where we are currently or where we were before.

I think human beings on the whole are capable of surviving almost anything as a species, because we can develop awareness of potential in each of our interactions with the universe, as well as awareness of time and existence both within and beyond our own physical sense of it. These abilities, when used, enable us to adapt to any conditions and be resourceful, but also enable us to anticipate complex problems and create effective solutions or preventative measures.

The trick is to develop a way to interact with the future as potential, not as actual. As you say,

Fear is a motivator but it is a detriment when conducting conversations that require rational thought. — TogetherTurtle

But purely rational thought requires us to solve problems outside of our participation in spacetime. To do that, the problem needs to be presented in all its complexity as an actuality. Which means that, as @mejonat suggests, we cannot logically anticipate and prepare for every potentiality.

So when we look at the broad potentiality of the future of our planet or our existence, I think perhaps we might benefit from facing our fear rather than blocking it out. I don’t mean we should focus in detail on all the ways we ‘might’ contribute to Armageddon. The fear we experience about our future is not about specific disasters - I think it’s a general fear of the unlimited potentiality facing humanity. We are certainly more than capable of making more mess, but I think we are also capable of ultimately perpetuating a sustainable environment for life in general. We just can’t work out what that looks like rationally yet, because we have to formulate a path to a future actuality based on a past actuality, and we keep running out of time to do this before our awareness of the current situation changes and we have to ‘re-calculate the route’ at both ends. A grand plan sounds comforting, but with this many variables, the moment you write it down it becomes obsolete.

Maybe rational thought needs to loosen its grip on the reins a bit. The pure rationality of science has a patchy track record at best when it comes to anticipating and preventing disaster (or predicting the weather). Maybe it’s a matter of exploring the future as a ‘fuzzy’ potentiality, and then ‘feeling’ our way forward - with the courage to continually seek both a broader potential in our interactions with the universe and a scope of time and existence beyond our physical sense of it. Maybe it’s a matter of getting over this fear of uncertainty that limits our perspective of the universe to the bounds of rational thought.

Of course, we could always just wait until there is an actual disaster to deal with...it seems to have worked for us so far (at considerable cost, mind you)...

What will be your moral fundament of what is cruel and selfish when raising new generations?

I think calling all people who question the causes, and the practical solutions of climate change “climate change deniers” is insulting.

Given that world leaders and organisations have gotten together and weighed the pro and cons of where to focus on global issues shows clearly enough that issues with the climate are best dealt with indirectly and are beign dealt with in this manner.

It is also a smidge hypocritical to say “fear is a detriment” right after saying “A disaster is coming in the near future”. It is hard to take your instance on that matter seriously in this light.

I think what causes many problems is that individual humans make choices at the expense of others/the environment, and they don't intend to mend the damage they caused. I'm generalizing, but I also think people that hurt other living things for personal gain are only comfortable doing so because they are selfish or bitter. It's a lack of love. Many times I think the community fails in raising them to be good people. So I think the best we can do to reduce the number of people that grow up to make selfish decisions is to take responsibility for showing love and respect to everyone in arm's reach. The more people that do that, the more that impulse will spread over time.

That's what I think. — mejonat

Welcome, mejonat.
I think what you think points to a basic and continuing problem for all living beings.
It is a power issue at different levels and interactions.
No matter what happens in the future, this will persist.
We have real problems right now which need to be addressed.
Some things are improving along with pressure groups and increased knowledge or awareness of what is actually going on.
If things are to change then those in power responsible for atrocious events or even simply poor decision making should be held to account. The system right now needs looking at. The question is how and by whom. There will still be contenders for power positions to enable a different way forward.

Some people talk of empathy as if it is only a philosophical concept to be argued about.
If I had a fantasy wish it would be for people to be plugged in to the real experiences of others. *

For example, the recent story of an Argentinian 11yr old - one of 1,000's - forced to give birth via caesarian section after having been raped. In this case by the grandmother's boyfriend.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/mar/05/thousands-young-girls-denied-abortion-argentina

...She had to undergo what is called a hysterotomy abortion, in which the foetus is removed via a small incision in the abdomen, similar to a caesarean section. Rescued by hospital staff, the foetus survived the procedure but is not expected to live.

Lucía discovered she was 17 weeks pregnant in January. A week later, she was admitted to hospital after an apparent suicide attempt. She, along with her family and women’s rights supporters, requested an abortion.

Court papers show that Lucía had told psychologists: “I want you to remove what the old man put inside me.”

But what followed was a battle between the health and opinion of the child and her parents, and the stance of the local authorities.
-----------

The answer to what should we do - depends on complex and interacting factors.
We should start by concentrating on the present. Look at evidence and use reason. Educate.


* virtual experience might still not be the answer in those determined to pursue selfish interests to the detriment of others and the planet. In that case, it has to be 'off with their heads' .

In a calmer and less provocative vein, issues of morality can be discussed from an early age. For example:

The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of issues. It amounts to imagine what a decision-maker would choose if they had enough information to know the consequences of their possible decisions for everyone but would not know, or would not take into account, which person he or she is.

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

What will be your moral fundament of what is cruel and selfish when raising new generations? — Aleksander

Welcome, Aleksander.

When educating the young, is it necessary to establish 'a moral fundament of what is cruel and selfish' ?

Depending on the age and circumstances, there will already be instances of unfairness and experiences, of perhaps bullying, which can be talked about from various perspectives. Also, the more positive experiences as a contrast.

There is a natural feeling of what is right and wrong. This can be the source of further examination.
I don't know how much of that is included in the curriculum or even as a way to inform individual or group discussion. However, the earlier we become aware of both internal and external factors related to wellbeingness, the better - in my opinion.

What would be your 'moral fundament' ?

I think it is impossible to establish such fundament on a global scale without unified transcendent or totalitarian power.

World government, administered online. Get everyone a cheap phone so they can vote. Public Co-option of google infrastructure to do it, perhaps.

To solve global problems countries have to co-operate to do a lot of difficult and extremely disruptive and expensive things. They won't do that, not all at once in a sufficiently co-ordinated way. It's too disparate and competitive.

Failing that, live on a boat or something.

What will be your moral fundament of what is cruel and selfish when raising new generations? — Aleksander

As you suggested in another post, It's dangerous to mandate a one-dimensional moral doctrine, but I can tell you what I would preach if I was standing at the pulpit.
The core of what i'm talking about is honesty. Honest effort to understand the true effects of one's actions (though we can never fully understand), honest intent to create the best outcome overall, for all humans including oneself (Utilitarian I guess), and honest expression of one's feelings (to make the effects of action clearer).
I think even destructive feelings of rage and hatred should be communicated in some way, and when they are communicated, I think the whole community is responsible for helping the person through those patterns of destruction/self-destruction. Often, these expressions are ignored, condemned, or punished, and I believe that allows the destructive impulse to grow. Of course, even in the most nurturing environments, some people still hold onto hatred/selfishness and let it destroy them. I only think it would happen a lot less if everybody saw the growth and flourishing of the entire community as part of their individual responsibility. It's about effort and awareness on an individual level.

Welcome, mejonat.
I think what you think points to a basic and continuing problem for all living beings.
It is a power issue at different levels and interactions.
No matter what happens in the future, this will persist.
We have real problems right now which need to be addressed.
Some things are improving along with pressure groups and increased knowledge or awareness of what is actually going on.
If things are to change then those in power responsible for atrocious events or even simply poor decision making should be held to account. — Amity

Thank you.
I agree with what you say here, but I think that even this basic problem can be reduced in potency over time. I also believe that "solving the problem", though it can never be completely "solved", involves examining and dealing with the basic core processes involved. These are fundamental parts of our experience as humans, and what I described is the closest thing I can think of to the actual source of our problems. It's also important, I think, to reflect on how humans develop universally, not just as individuals, and what we can do to heal destructive tendencies. This is what I'm trying to point to.
I also agree that there are plenty of other problems that need to be addressed, but I don't think that's enough of a reason to forget about the fundamental problems. I think both need to be tackled. In my opinion, only focusing on the current problems (or the "real" ones) is like continually suppressing the symptoms without looking at healing the disease. We need to look to the future as well, and I actually believe we can do both.

If things are to change then those in power responsible for atrocious events or even simply poor decision making should be held to account. — Amity

I forgot to address this.
I agree, individuals should be accountable for their own actions. I just think that the ultimate goal should be to bring those individuals to a place where they genuinely repent and don't want to do those actions anymore. That's a difficult thing to do, but I believe it's possible, or at least worth a try. I'm saying we should all make more of an effort to lift those people up to build a better society with all of us, rather than just throwing them in a jail cell and hoping we never have to think about them again.

Tell me, what is the greatest strength of the human mind? Is it the ability to convey complex ideas? Perhaps the ability to formulate those ideas in the first place? Maybe it's the effect our will has on the world we inhabit? I would argue all of the above. — TogetherTurtle

I think I'd add understanding the difference between singular and plural grammatically.

All of these problems for my descendants... I wish them luck, I don't care if they blame me, I've given up.

Hope is mistakenly viewed as something to lose, in the past or in the present, when it’s really a matter of being aware of the potential of where we can go, despite where we are currently or where we were before. — Possibility

Potential seems very important. Convincing the public that a bright future is ahead of them is nigh essential to creating a bright future, it seems.

The trick is to develop a way to interact with the future as potential, not as actual. As you say, — Possibility

I may have implied that disaster is imminent but I don't think I feel that way. All I really wanted to do was shift the attitude here from "gloom and doom" to "problem-solving". I also wanted to make sure that we didn't get bogged down on one topic. Maybe I made the question a bit too open-ended.

So I think the best we can do to reduce the number of people that grow up to make selfish decisions is to take responsibility for showing love and respect to everyone in arm's reach. The more people that do that, the more that impulse will spread over time.

That's what I think. — mejonat

I question if selfishness is learned, an innate part of the human mind, or both. I think we could hope to separate ourselves from it over time, but it would take a very long time. It's also very hard to change people's mindset without forcing them at gunpoint, which would also fall into the realm of what could be called a decision made at the expense of another.

I think calling all people who question the causes, and the practical solutions of climate change “climate change deniers” is insulting. — I like sushi

I apologize if I offended you or others. That was not the intention. For future reference, what do people who question if climate change is real go by? To clarify further, I am not against people thinking that it isn't real and I think they may have some ground to stand on some of the time. The truth is that no one really knows for sure.

Given that world leaders and organisations have gotten together and weighed the pro and cons of where to focus on global issues shows clearly enough that issues with the climate are best dealt with indirectly and are beign dealt with in this manner. — I like sushi

I think that this generally assumes that world leaders care about the general population. Some nations wear neglect for their peoples on their sleeves and some hide it from the world. I would say most world governments don't care about the average person and also have comfortable bunkers and supplies ready for emergencies that conveniently don't have room for us.

It is also a smidge hypocritical to say “fear is a detriment” right after saying “A disaster is coming in the near future”. It is hard to take your instance on that matter seriously in this light. — I like sushi

When I said, "A disaster is coming in the near future" it was part of the hypothetical I proposed. For the most part, I think that any kind of disaster we can really detect is far off. I just wanted to shift the conversation on the forum from discussing how bad the world is going to be to how we could make the world a better place. I apologize if my wording was confusing in any way.

Individual actions are insignificant, but we won't choose to do anything collectively until there is a major, major catastrophe. I imagine the impetus for real change would require something horrid, like a 3rd of the planets population being wiped out. Then maybe it will be too late though.

World government, administered online. Get everyone a cheap phone so they can vote. Public Co-option of google infrastructure to do it, perhaps. — bert1

A techno-democracy of sorts. I have played with the idea before. Since it was my dead end on the subject, how do you propose we stop hackers from playing the elections? World governments seem to have trouble with hacking constantly and I don't think that is going away. Otherwise, a useful contribution to the discussion.

To solve global problems countries have to co-operate to do a lot of difficult and extremely disruptive and expensive things. They won't do that, not all at once in a sufficiently co-ordinated way. It's too disparate and competitive. — bert1

I have pondered that maybe our current system of governance is hurting us in the long term. I think we should start theory crafting better and more effective forms of governing.

I think I'd add understanding the difference between singular and plural grammatically. — Terrapin Station

This one is interesting. It seems implied that I am not human from this, because I didn't meet the standard of understanding singular and plural. Either that or I am some demi-human. I am willing to accept this, but in return, will you point out my mistake? I wrote this rather late at night and I probably did make a mistake I'm willing to learn from.

I was just being a smartass due to you asking "what is the greatest strength of the human mind," whereupon you listed a handful of things and then said "All of the above."

I question if selfishness is learned, an innate part of the human mind, or both. I think we could hope to separate ourselves from it over time, but it would take a very long time. It's also very hard to change people's mindset without forcing them at gunpoint, which would also fall into the realm of what could be called a decision made at the expense of another. — TogetherTurtle

I agree, it would take a very long time. That's why the sooner everybody starts taking it seriously the better off we'll be later on down the line. And the goal isn't to change people's mindset at gunpoint, it's to do the best we can for everybody now so that those destructive mindsets are less common in the future. Holding a gun to somebody isn't doing the best we can, we can obviously do better than that.

Also, whether selfishness is learned, innate, or both, it's true that individual humans can grow to be more empathetic, and it's true that other humans can facilitate that kind of growth through the sharing of love. Therefore, selfishness in individuals/on a wider scale can be reduced, so we should try to make that happen as much as we can. Allowing ourselves to resign to the idea that it's just innate is too defeatist in my opinion.

Who will survive a barely survivable global disaster?

Probably the survivors will be those with the most adaptable set of skills for surviving. People who know how to grow food using hand tools, for instance. People who know how to preserve food without electricity. People who have enough skill to fashion shelters, make simple clothing, treat wounds, and so forth. These people certainly exist -- and they aren't survivalists. They are people like a billion peasants who already survive this way. People like the Amish who use horsepower and hand tools.

People who can cooperate with others reasonably well will have an advantage. Bright, imaginative practical people will do better than coders, philosophers, astrophysicists, and the like.

Many of us would die if electrical power disappeared. Pull cars and gasoline from the scene and more of would die. In all, probably around... 5 billion? 6 billion? It isn't that 5 or 6 billion people are just too stupid to live, it's that 4, 5, or 6 billion people have become dependent on 20th century technology. Most of us lost the pre-high technology skills of the 19th century. We don't farm; we don't do large-scale gardening; we don't treat our own wounds; we don't build so much as an outhouse. We've become very highly specialized.

How many of us, in the post-disaster age, would know what to do with a female cow if we had one? How much food does a cow need? How does one keep a cow producing milk? What if one decides to eat the cow: how does one kill and butcher a cow? How does one keep the meat from spoiling in a couple of days? Will a vegan be able to chop a chicken's head off, rip off the feathers, pull its guts out, and cook it (assuming that there happens to be no organic, gluten free, non-gmo, pesticide free tofu laying about). How many vegans will be able to make tofu, assuming they happen to have a bushel of soy beans?

My paternal great grandparents (I'm 72) farmed before there was electricity, antibiotics, gasoline, autos, and the like. They had to have many of the skills I'm talking about.

One promising sign is that a lot of people are learning how to grow hops and brew beer. Somebody needs to find temperate zone plants that produce caffeine.