UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in ‘great peril’

[Stevicus]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Warning that the world is in “great peril,” the head of the United Nations says leaders meeting in person for the first time in three years must tackle conflicts and climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality — and address divisions among major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.

In speeches and remarks leading up to the start of the leaders’ meeting Tuesday, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres cited the “immense” task not only of saving the planet, “which is literally on fire,” but of dealing with the persisting COVID-19 pandemic. He also pointed to “a lack of access to finance for developing countries to recover -- a crisis not seen in a generation” that has seen ground lost for education, health and women’s rights.

Guterres will deliver his “state of the world” speech at Tuesday’s opening of the annual high-level global gathering. U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said it would be “a sober, substantive and solutions-focused report card” for a world “where geopolitical divides are putting all of us at risk.”

“There will be no sugar-coating in his remarks, but he will outline reasons for hope,” Dujarric told reporters Monday.

The 77th General Assembly meeting of world leaders convenes under the shadow of Europe’s first major war since World War II — the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, which has unleashed a global food crisis and opened fissures among major powers in a way not seen since the Cold War.

Yet nearly 150 heads of state and government are on the latest speakers’ list. That’s a sign that despite the fragmented state of the planet, the United Nations remains the key gathering place for presidents, prime ministers, monarchs and ministers to not only deliver their views but to meet privately to discuss the challenges on the global agenda -- and hopefully make some progress.

At the top of that agenda for many: Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, which not only threatens the sovereignty of its smaller neighbor but has raised fears of a nuclear catastrophe at Europe’s largest nuclear plant in the country’s now Russia-occupied southeast.

Leaders in many countries are trying to prevent a wider war and restore peace in Europe. Diplomats, though, aren’t expecting any breakthroughs this week.

The loss of important grain and fertilizer exports from Ukraine and Russia has triggered a food crisis, especially in developing countries, and inflation and a rising cost of living in many others. Those issues are high on the agenda.

At a meeting Monday to promote U.N. goals for 2030 — including ending extreme poverty, ensuring quality education for all children and achieving gender equality — Guterres said the world’s many pressing perils make it “tempting to put our long-term development priorities to one side.”

But the U.N. chief said some things can’t wait — among them education, dignified jobs, full equality for women and girls, comprehensive health care and action to tackle the climate crisis. He called for public and private finance and investment, and above all for peace.

The death of Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II and her funeral in London on Monday, which many world leaders attended, have created last-minute headaches for the high-level meeting. Diplomats and U.N. staff have scrambled to deal with changes in travel plans, the timing of events and the logistically intricate speaking schedule for world leaders.

The global gathering, known as the General Debate, was entirely virtual in 2020 because of the pandemic, and hybrid in 2021. This year, the 193-member General Assembly returns to only in-person speeches, with a single exception — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Over objections from Russia and a few allies, the assembly voted last Friday to allow the Ukrainian leader to prerecord his speech because of reasons beyond his control — the “ongoing foreign invasion” and military hostilities that require him to carry out his “national defense and security duties.”

By tradition, Brazil has spoken first for over seven decades because, at the early General Assembly sessions, it volunteered to start when no other country did.

The U.S. president, representing the host country for the United Nations, is traditionally the second speaker. But Joe Biden is attending the queen’s funeral, and his speech has been pushed to Wednesday morning. Senegalese President Macky Sall is expected to take Biden’s slot.

What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

 

[Twilight Hue]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.













What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

Sounds like business as usual.

 

[PureX]

The climate problem is cumulative, so I'd say it's worse than 50 years ago even though we are generating less pollution than we were 50 years ago.

The danger of a global catastrophe due to warring nations has gotten worse in the last 10 years, but is still not as likely as it was 50-60 years ago.

The real danger is in the rise of corporate conglomerates and their ability to subjugate whole governments to further redistribute the world's wealth (and power) into the hands of a small number of the most greedy and unscrupulous among us. Because that course of action cannot lead humanity in any direction that will not result in horrific abuse and disaster.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The climate problem is cumulative, so I'd say it's worse than 50 years ago even though we are generating less pollution than we were 50 years ago.

The danger of a global catastrophe due to warring nations has gotten worse in the last 10 years, but is still not as likely as it was 50-60 years ago.

The real danger is in the rise of corporate conglomerates and their ability to subjugate whole governments to further redistribute the world's wealth (and power) into the hands of a small number if the most greedy and unscrupulous among us. Because that course of action cannot lead humanity in any direction that will not result in horrific abuse and disaster.

I only wish I could just keep clicking on the **Winner** button over and over ………and over again.

 

[Truth in love]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.













What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

It’s a mixed bag, on the one hand we have the technology to provide enough food that no one needs to be hungry, we can make clean water so no one has to be thirsty.

Despite this we have massive homelessness in the US, China locking people in their homes or interning them in prison camps. Drug smuggling at scary levels, human trafficking, etc are massive.

Paul called it well
2 Tim 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


If we do not change course we will arrive at where we are heading.

 

[Truth in love]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.













What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

On a more positive note it’s 100% vegan so we meat eaters are safe.

 

[1213]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.

What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? ...

Maybe, but the reason is the politicians that apparently can only make things worse. Most problems in this world seems to be caused by politicians. If people would be free individuals that have only power over their own life, this world would be better. For example we would not have wars without politicians. The war in Ukraine is because politicians wanted it. They could have avoided it, if they would have wanted so. They wanted it probably because it can increase their power and help them and their friends to get richer.

"Climate emergency" is also artificial problem. It exists only because it helps politicians and their friends to get more power and money. Climate has always been changing and probably will do so till the end of the world, humans can't stop it. That is why it is genius move from them to exploit it to oppress people even more.

The reason why I think world is in great peril is that the world leaders have become utterly evil and only way to end it is that God ends their rule. Maybe they are already feeling that the "bowls of the wrath of God" are full and soon to be poured on the earth.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Hm, from what I can tell they seem a bit scattered? Surely there has to be a hierarchy to these problems. They are all serious, but I think maybe some are magnitudes more serious than others. Comparatively, I think that the pandemic, while serious, is probably many degrees less an item than would be many of the permutations of major nuclear disaster. Food shortages can be serious, but they are still building suburbs over farmland here in wisconsin. Loss of human rights and poverty is troubling, at probably ranks highly on the scale

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

I suppose you could try to compare what a modern 'political day' is like, to what such a day might be like 1000 years ago or something. There might be some overlap in terms of general problems, but in many cases, we modern people have a completely new set of problems, to people from many different periods in the past. A group of axe-wielding warriors isn't going to appear to raze one's village, and the black plague probably won't strike, but we now have the threat of nuclear armageddon, and other novel internal social strife

If you want you can listen to some of the prepping youtube channels, but that can be kind of depressing. The ones I sometimes follow are ny prepper, and full spectrum survival. I don't really take any of the advice they give, but they give a rather alarming take on the news, on a daily basis. The only things I got in case society really breaks down, is a really highly rated cold-weather sleeping bag, and I do have a water filtering cup. I don't have pallets of beans, or anything like that though

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

From what I can tell, society started taking an experimental turn a couple hundred years ago, and it's mostly been sort of about that, since then. We are still sort of at the tale end of 'labeling everything,' scientifically, and maybe haven't really given order to much of it. I'm not exactly sure what I mean by that, but that's kind of what it feels like.

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

Um, I don't think we are quite there yet. At least I really hope not. Not only is that gross, but wouldn't that give most people a form of chronic wasting disease, like with what happened to the cattle some years back

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

I am reading david benetar at the moment. I listen to people who make serious assessments, and I want to hear, sometimes, what others consider to be harder kind of facts. However, I want be an optimist, and I want to remain productive. I have read 3 roman stoic philosophers in the past year. I think the human puzzle, and the earth-biology puzzle, are just puzzles that we can solve eventually.

Now, being that I want to be an optimist, I don't think things on earth are quite that bad, and I really hope the doomsayers are in fact being hyperbolic. I think that the people running the world could use a bit more organization and order, but I don't think it's anything that they couldn't gradually phase in, if need be. There many are books and articles discussing all the innovations that we've made in the last century. They matter. There are optimistic people working nonstop to make things better, and that matters

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

Well I think that maybe the thing to do now, is for the leaders to slow things down. When things slow down, even if there is conflict, then that gives all of the actors time to think, which they inevitably will do more of, if they are made to have more time. And changes occur from that, that don't get a chance to emerge if conflicts are allowed to be more rapid, in terms of pace.

 

[Stevicus]

The climate problem is cumulative, so I'd say it's worse than 50 years ago even though we are generating less pollution than we were 50 years ago.

Also, the world population has more than doubled since then.

The danger of a global catastrophe due to warring nations has gotten worse in the last 10 years, but is still not as likely as it was 50-60 years ago.

The real danger is in the rise of corporate conglomerates and their ability to subjugate whole governments to further redistribute the world's wealth (and power) into the hands of a small number if the most greedy and unscrupulous among us. Because that course of action cannot lead humanity in any direction that will not result in horrific abuse and disaster.

I wonder, though, was all this inevitable? Human greed and a lack of scruples are certainly constants throughout history. There have always been those who want more and more and more - more gold, more power, more land, more resources. It just seems an endless cycle and recurring pattern throughout history. Is there no other way for humanity to go?

 

[exchemist]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.













What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

I think you are conflating two things: the present state of the world and the likely future if certain issues are not tackled.

 

[Stevicus]

Maybe, but the reason is the politicians that apparently can only make things worse. Most problems in this world seems to be caused by politicians. If people would be free individuals that have only power over their own life, this world would be better. For example we would not have wars without politicians. The war in Ukraine is because politicians wanted it. They could have avoided it, if they would have wanted so. They wanted it probably because it can increase their power and help them and their friends to get richer.

"Climate emergency" is also artificial problem. It exists only because it helps politicians and their friends to get more power and money. Climate has always been changing and probably will do so till the end of the world, humans can't stop it. That is why it is genius move from them to exploit it to oppress people even more.

The reason why I think world is in great peril is that the world leaders have become utterly evil and only way to end it is that God ends their rule. Maybe they are already feeling that the "bowls of the wrath of God" are full and soon to be poured on the earth.

I can see some of what you're saying here. Politics can obviously be tricky among humans, as it always has been. Humans are social animals, and politics to some degree became necessary even in the most primitive communities. The ability to speak and use complex language also helped in that process.

But even now, in the 21st century, despite whatever advances we've made, there's still much greed, tyranny, and as you say, politicians making war just because they want to. The same mentality as cavemen with clubs wanting to pound the crap out of other cavemen with clubs. It's just that now, we have cavemen with nukes.

As an agnostic, I tend to leave the whole question of God somewhat open-ended, but at this point, I'm not against the idea of God coming in to set things straight in this world. I would not object to such a thing happening, if it ever did come to pass. I'm just not holding my breath.

 

[Five Solas]

UN chief warns global leaders: The world is in 'great peril' | AP News

Conflicts, climate catastrophes, increasing poverty and inequality, and divisions among the major powers that have gotten worse since Russia invaded Ukraine.













What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Is the world in great peril? Sometimes I hear conflicting views on this topic. Some people seem to believe that the world is better off than it was 50-100 years ago, and others say things are worse.

Is it a lack of foresight? Negligence? Myopia? Should we have known better? Or was all this inevitable and there was nothing we could have done to prevent it?

I remember back when we were treated to visions of the future like "Soylent Green," so at least some people had an inkling even back then. Why didn't we heed the warnings?

On the other hand, some may argue that the world has turned out nowhere near as bad as it was envisioned in "Soylent Green," so maybe the doomsayers are exaggerating? I do recall dire warnings being made about overpopulation, although those warnings seem to have subsided and toned down since the 1970s.

What about the geopolitical divides? Are we in worse peril now than we were during the height of the Cold War? What could we have done differently? What did we do wrong, and have we learned from our mistakes?

Very few of these problems were directly caused by 'the man in the street.' These are the fruits of the powerful, big business, and evil politicians.

Well, the Bible proves to be correct again - A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. (Gal 6)

Did secular society really expect to create paradise?

Fewer and fewer trust politicians and their propaganda tools. And correctly so. The Bible says:

3 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.
4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.
5 Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD his God,
6 the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them-- the LORD, who remains faithful forever. (Ps 146)

We live in the last days. As Christians, we are not surprised.

Does the 'man in the street' still trust the UN? I doubt it...

 

[Stevicus]

I think you are conflating two things: the present state of the world and the likely future if certain issues are not tackled.

Well, I would say the present and future are connected to each other. Obviously, what we do in the present can affect what happens in the future.

Are you saying that I'm conflating two things, or the UN Secretary-General?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do you think of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres' remarks?

Overall the entire world is not under threat, however there are some serious hard times ahead. Hard times are going to get worse. A weakened Russia is (at the moment) good for everybody. China has found out that it is subject to economic cycles and that it has shrunk its population too quickly. Africa continues to suffer too much from brain drain and from tiny dictatorships -- but not everywhere! South America and North America continue slowly to unite as our unstoppable shared destiny becomes increasingly obvious. Australia and the commonwealth nations have probably got a golden age ahead of them over the next fifty years.

Oh...climate change is probably real, however the most obvious threats are pollutants such as BPH and heavy metals and plagues. These things make us all less intelligent over time, killing us off for the wrong reasons thus leading to bad evolution. We should be survivors because we are smart not because we withstand lots of poison. There are technological means of removing pollutants. Future generations will be stuck with having to use them. In the meantime pollutants have and will cause untold damage to various animals including ourselves. They already have. Lots of us have led poisoning and cancers caused by plastics and heavy metals and bad air. Many people suffer and die from pollutants which create inflammation leading to cancer. There are also indications that these may be causing Parkinsons and Alzheimers for many people. We obsess over climate shifts but ignore pollutants that are actively destroying us.

 

[F1fan]

It’s a mixed bag, on the one hand we have the technology to provide enough food that no one needs to be hungry, we can make clean water so no one has to be thirsty.

Despite this we have massive homelessness in the US, China locking people in their homes or interning them in prison camps. Drug smuggling at scary levels, human trafficking, etc are massive.

Paul called it well
2 Tim 3:
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.


If we do not change course we will arrive at where we are heading.

And what change of course do you suggest? We know you reject climate change and experts in science, so I'm not sure your beliefs will be fact-based and workable, but I'm asking anyway so we can see if you have anything to offer.

 

[F1fan]

View attachment 66790


On a more positive note it’s 100% vegan so we meat eaters are safe.

Given you say it's vegan, it must actually be meat. And human meat. Damn, Charleton Heston was right.

 

[metis]

Is the world in great peril?

Absolutely, and nukes and climate change ain't the only factors. Stephen Hawking felt that because of our self-centeredness that we need to rush and find a different planet or moon to live on.

 

[F1fan]

Maybe, but the reason is the politicians that apparently can only make things worse. Most problems in this world seems to be caused by politicians. If people would be free individuals that have only power over their own life, this world would be better. For example we would not have wars without politicians.

It's called anarchy. And without government to organize billions of people it will be constant small, tribal fights over local resources. And it will become regional eventually because leaders rise and followers are attracted to them. Look at how many are maniulated by Trump. Trump has no interest in governing, but he interested in power, and that is through his tribe, and he will govern his tribe, and outsiders will be dealth with harshly, like the Taliban does. And there you are back with a government, and it won't be tolerant, moral, ethical, oen to diversity, limited freedom, etc. So your ideal will not work. If you want stability so you can go to work and mox your lawn without being murdered then government is your friend.

The war in Ukraine is because politicians wanted it. They could have avoided it, if they would have wanted so. They wanted it probably because it can increase their power and help them and their friends to get richer.

Many citizens protested, and they were arrested and threatened. That is a dictator at work. It's what happens when democracy fails in a nation. It fails because the people are weak and they don't fight for democracy. The USA did fight for democracy and Trump failed on Jan 6. War against Ukraine, war agains trans and gays, all the same thing through different means.

"Climate emergency" is also artificial problem. It exists only because it helps politicians and their friends to get more power and money. Climate has always been changing and probably will do so till the end of the world, humans can't stop it. That is why it is genius move from them to exploit it to oppress people even more.

You are a victim of right wing disinformation.

The reason why I think world is in great peril is that the world leaders have become utterly evil and only way to end it is that God ends their rule. Maybe they are already feeling that the "bowls of the wrath of God" are full and soon to be poured on the earth.

I suggest it is due to many citizens the world over are not well informed and have political beliefs that favor their tribe at the cost all other people. Look at your religious belief, you really think it is true and real, don't you? I'll bet you believe it has authority over everyone even if they aren't your stripe of Christian, am I wrong? Gods and authoritarian leaders are the problem, not solutions. As it is the world problems seem to be coming from right wing politics, with greed, indifference to suffering, science denial, authoritarian leadership like putin and Trump and Erdogan and Le pen, etc.

 

[metis]

As it is the world problems seem to be coming from right wing politics, with greed, indifference to suffering, science denial, authoritarian leadership like putin and Trump and Erdogan and Le pen, etc.

^^this^^

 

[Stevicus]

Hm, from what I can tell they seem a bit scattered? Surely there has to be a hierarchy to these problems. They are all serious, but I think maybe some are magnitudes more serious than others. Comparatively, I think that the pandemic, while serious, is probably many degrees less an item than would be many of the permutations of major nuclear disaster. Food shortages can be serious, but they are still building suburbs over farmland here in wisconsin. Loss of human rights and poverty is troubling, at probably ranks highly on the scale

Sure, I can see what you're saying here. We might have to prioritize some issues over others, depending on severity and urgency. Of course, those in political office oftentimes have to measure and compromise on what they say publicly, so they might come across as scattered and sometimes even banal and bland. Determining the hierarchy of problems of which you speak will ultimately end up as political questions within that realm.

Politics itself can also be problematic, as most of us well know. People can sometimes grow impatient with politicians who make endless promises but fail to deliver. They talk, they squabble, they have power struggles with each other - and even if there are those who go in with the best of intentions, they still can't seem to get the job done. Meanwhile, the people continue to languish and suffer until some ambitious type comes along and says "Follow me, and give me all the political power, and I will get the job done and solve all the problems."

I suppose you could try to compare what a modern 'political day' is like, to what such a day might be like 1000 years ago or something. There might be some overlap in terms of general problems, but in many cases, we modern people have a completely new set of problems, to people from many different periods in the past. A group of axe-wielding warriors isn't going to appear to raze one's village, and the black plague probably won't strike, but we now have the threat of nuclear armageddon, and other novel internal social strife

It's funny you mention this, as I was reading an article recently about old castles and palaces and the actual living conditions of how they were back in the Middle Ages. They didn't have any kind of fixed plumbing - something that most of us take for granted in these modern times. They had chamber pots scattered about which were emptied by servants, but if someone couldn't find a pot, they might just find a quiet corner of the castle and do their business on the floor. And these were the palaces - the places where the wealthiest and most powerful people of the time were living. Absolutely wretched. The Royal Court would travel and stay at other castles in order for the servants to do a periodic cleaning up of all the human waste littering the premises.

So, yes, I would imagine the typical political day back in those times was quite different indeed. Probably steeped in a lot of religion and superstition, which may not be as prevalent today.

If you want you can listen to some of the prepping youtube channels, but that can be kind of depressing. The ones I sometimes follow are ny prepper, and full spectrum survival. I don't really take any of the advice they give, but they give a rather alarming take on the news, on a daily basis. The only things I got in case society really breaks down, is a really highly rated cold-weather sleeping bag, and I do have a water filtering cup. I don't have pallets of beans, or anything like that though

I've never seen any of those channels, although I have come across a few preppers here and there. I figure, either I'll die in a nuclear wasteland or in a nice warm bed surrounded by people in a happy, idyllic society - but either way, I'll be just as dead. No amount of prepping can prevent that.

From what I can tell, society started taking an experimental turn a couple hundred years ago, and it's mostly been sort of about that, since then. We are still sort of at the tale end of 'labeling everything,' scientifically, and maybe haven't really given order to much of it. I'm not exactly sure what I mean by that, but that's kind of what it feels like.

Yes, the industrial revolution and the vast improvements in communication and transportation, along with other advancements in science and technology. If one looks at the past 200 years and compares it with the previous 4000-6000 years of human history, it is somewhat astounding how far we've come in a relatively short period of time.

Now, being that I want to be an optimist, I don't think things on earth are quite that bad, and I really hope the doomsayers are in fact being hyperbolic. I think that the people running the world could use a bit more organization and order, but I don't think it's anything that they couldn't gradually phase in, if need be. There many are books and articles discussing all the innovations that we've made in the last century. They matter. There are optimistic people working nonstop to make things better, and that matters

I'm not sure what's going to happen, but we can hope for a positive outcome. There have been doomsayers for a long time, and yet, things still seem to be going as reasonably as can be expected. Maybe somehow, we'll muddle through and survive, despite our own flaws and shortcomings as a species.

But I also consider that we're in uncharted territory.

Well I think that maybe the thing to do now, is for the leaders to slow things down. When things slow down, even if there is conflict, then that gives all of the actors time to think, which they inevitably will do more of, if they are made to have more time. And changes occur from that, that don't get a chance to emerge if conflicts are allowed to be more rapid, in terms of pace.