You must log in or register to comment.

RufusCranium t1_iwpchjf wrote

Wherever you should find yourself, leave it better than how it was on your arrival.


chasonreddit t1_iwpn69h wrote

I like this, it applies to people too. Kindness costs nothing and almost always leaves the recipient a little better.


RufusCranium t1_iwpqclz wrote

Indeed. Complimentary, this. Thank you.


SqueakyNinja7 t1_iwpxcem wrote

Agreed with these, however it’s sad to see the rest of the comments about taxing the wealthy etc, rather than actually answering the OPs question of what we can do in our day to day.


RufusCranium t1_iwv148n wrote

Mass media ravages the masses. It's called programming for a reason. It wasn't until I was in my late 20s that I started to understand the true nature of broadcasting. One word can sum it up. Division.


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwr5jy1 wrote

How do you quantify this?


RufusCranium t1_iwsczpr wrote

Human intuition. Be of service. It is better to give than to receive. Don't leave your trash (in any sense you may consider) for others to deal with, while simultaneously going the extra mile to take care of that which you see. Fill needs best suited to your talents, gifts, and resources. Find someone in need and help. Plant trees, gardens, vegetation. Care for animals responsibly. Conserve water and energy. Be at peace with yourself, and offer freely to others that understanding.

It's not a question of quantification. The question is, "Will I add some problems, take some away, or stand by the wayside?" Sometimes the wayside is the best option, sometimes it serves to add, and sometimes it serves to take away. That's where intuition comes in.

But, if one still needs to analyze this rationally, then I would say, "If more people did this consistently than did before, then the world would have no choice but to be a better place."


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwtoo7r wrote

What if someone doesn't want to receive? What do you mean by care for animals responsibly?

Yes, intuition, but that have to come from somewhere.


RufusCranium t1_iwu19ca wrote

I suppose just leave those who wish not to receive to themselves. Each animal has an effect on the natural order, but some are out of place, some overpopulate as others diminish. We have the superior intellect, along with opposable thumbs, and have far outpaced the the other living beings of this world, and know that many animals even have feelings. We should not make them go extinct, nor should we let them overrule, but find a way to do so without cruelty. If we have pets, neither neglect them nor allow them to be a danger or nuisance, otherwise harm may come to them or others, by others or them, respectively.

Be the best you, and I'll be the best me.


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwu30b0 wrote

And then we have the animals we have in captivity and exploit, what should we do with them?


RufusCranium t1_iwuzkjr wrote

Like humans, animals become institutionalized over time. While many may still pose a risk to humans, they would not fare well competing for their place, food, and resources outside of captivity. I am no animal expert, but I have been to the zoo to view the animals Most recently, it was a disheartening experience. To me, the more intelligent animals seemed depressed. In my own personal opinion, we shouldn't capture any more. They have certain wildlife refuges for some, and introducing them to a better place to live out their remaining days might be good. There are others which my have to remain in capitivity until they pass on to the next realm, and still others which may very well be safe to release entirely. But again, that's only my opinion.

The point is to leave it better than when you found it. I find joy in doing what I consider to be "my part" as I had once seriously asked of myself what my purpose in this life was. The answer came back to me clearly as I saw the status of the world become more and more dire. There are more than 8 billion of us now. Imagine if just 25% of us took it upon ourselves to right what we were able of the wrongs we encounter. It doesn't have to be complicated or frustrating, but simple and good. We don't live in a perfect world by any means, so chances are that our efforts won't have perfect results. But, if we never try, we'll have no results at all. And how sullen a picture would that paint?


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwv1ned wrote

And then we have the animals we exploit for food, what about them?


RufusCranium t1_iwwx978 wrote

Treat them well. Eat less of them.


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwy7tzw wrote

Or we can all eat plants.


RufusCranium t1_iwya9my wrote

I can't control anyone but myself. I presently eat more plants than meat, and will probably adopt an all-plant based diet in the next 5 years. If others followed that, I think it would be wonderful, but have no expectations. However, I think science is stating that there simply won't be enough fertile farmland to feed everyone. I may not have the choice. However, I can care for my own land and grow whatever possible. I don't have enough to feed me for a full year, and if drought or pestilence ever came my way, it wouldn't be a reliable source of food. Many people from India are known to be vegan.I could probably get some tips from them. But back to the main point.

Leave it better than you found it. Simple.


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwyealb wrote

Fantastic man, actually if we all were vegan we would use 75% less land. Since we do not have to feed all the husbandry and marine life.

Look at this:


RufusCranium t1_iwyl3rm wrote

It's actually been an interesting conversation with you. I appreciate that you didn't try to cram veganism down my throat. Rational conversations are hard to come by here.


Meliodas1981 t1_iwpd82y wrote

Stop sucking money away from the working/middle class in all countries and giving it to the rich.....there is a reason why the US is the richest country in the world and its because FDR knew a strong middle class would make everyone richer........they are going in the opposite direction now and it's not going to end well.


HomarusSimpson t1_iwqrvws wrote

A popular belief, but untrue:


Year World Gini coefficients
1988 0.80
1993 0.76
1998 0.74
2003 0.72
2008 0.70
2013 0.65
Lower is less unequal. Each period has gone down.
> ..... a continuous decline since 1988. This is attributed to globalization increasing incomes for billions of poor people, mostly in countries like China and India. Developing countries like Brazil have also improved basic services like health care, education, and sanitation; others like Chile and Mexico have enacted more progressive tax policies


butts_kapinsky t1_iws5ytc wrote

Honestly hard to think of anything more misleading than this comment. Income disparity on a global scale, it turns out, is pretty complex. Some places have increased inequality, some haven't.

Interestingly, China and India's development have brought down global Gini, while the in-country inequality has increased. Brazil is about as wildly disparate in it's wealth as it ever has been, though it's gini coefficient has risen slightly.

Mexico is one of the few places that has actually managed to reduce their inequality in the past decades, yet it remains among the worst offenders.


FartsLord t1_iwpjqex wrote

Simple answer - buy $GME and get it back.


Xtraordinaire t1_iwpbwxj wrote

Vote, tell others to vote.

Doesn't matter if we become an interplanetary or interstellar species but lose democracy in the process. The slide into authoritarianism often begins with cynicism and apathy.


DrifterInKorea t1_iwpg6a2 wrote

People who seriously think Elon Musk is bringing a potential solution with interplanetary transport should do a bit more research about what it takes to make something very very hard (teraforming or at least having an habitable buble) and very very far away VS limiting pollution on our current planet.

The guy is a dreamer which is great but our peoblems should be answered with solutions, not dreams.

Like the wars going on all over the world are polluting like crazy and basically nobody has ever to take responsibility for it.

It's way easier and quicker (ie ozone hole) to fix pollution than trying to build something new.


Ilya-ME t1_iwpj1ro wrote

Plus I feel like people forget just how inhospitable the rest of the solar system is. It doesn’t really matter how polluted earth is, it’s always gonna be easier to fix or adapt to whatever’s going on back home than in any other planet.


nickpofig t1_iwu0t4c wrote

There is one fact that makes other world appeal us better than our: there are no humans to deal with. Get your buddies, set there, and enjoy peace knowing full well it gonna take millennia or something for annoying dumbfucks to come and ruin your place.


Ilya-ME t1_iwu42at wrote

That’s not even close to the truth, you’re not gonna be living in some secluded property like you very easily can on earth. You’re gonna be living in a compound that’s as small as possible, likely subterranean as well since there’s barely any atmosphere to protect you from the sun. You’ll be sardine’d with at least half a dozen other people and have 0 privacy as you constantly breathe their recycled air and drink their recycled pee.


nickpofig t1_iwu5k0x wrote

I said nothing about QoL. It was all about getting away from mad people. Period. Go debate and rant about space life with someone else. Bruh, find a thread about space colonization and get your "points" there - I am not interested.


Ilya-ME t1_iwxxx9y wrote

Get away from mad people? In space? You do know there’s very good reasons why any astronauts are heavily screened right? Staying for longer than our limit of half a year and even those people could crack. The standards for a colony would be fairly lower since there’s just not enough candidates, recipe for disaster.


BernhardRordin t1_iwpowvo wrote

Build more fission reactors, invest into fusion & recycling. Build sustainable transport (bullet trains).


chasonreddit t1_iwpmxyn wrote

Educate yourself and educate others. Learn to think critically. Education, not indoctrination. Obviously you must educate yourself before you can educate others.

Not to pick on anyone, but read through the comments on this thread. Some you will think are a good idea, some you will think are idiotic. This is simply caused by lack of information, sometimes on the posters part, sometimes on mine.

But try to educate yourself on a topic before you have an opinion on it. Do NOT consider yourself informed because you heard or read some expert say it. What someone on Reddit said is even worse. And if you ask someone on reddit to back up what they said they will cite an expert. Well that doesn't mean you know it, it simply means that someone said it.

If you ask 100 people what is the most important thing, you will get 101 answers. And most of these are just parroting what they heard someone else say.

I've always loved the tag line from the Straight Dope.

> Fighting ignorance since 1973. (It's taking longer than we thought.)


Single_Pick1468 t1_iwr1apw wrote

It baffles me that no one have written: not taking part in the annual carnism of 80 billion land animals and trillions of marine life.


alakeya t1_iwped5l wrote

Question everything in politics. The amount of people who gladly accepts everything their government says because of nationalism is frightening. There isn’t anything wrong with being proud of where you are from but accepting everything that happens in your country for pride or because “xyz country is worse than ours” is a one way ticket to a hellish existence.


cosmicfertilizer t1_iwpu1f2 wrote

Well, with a 44 billion dollar social media acquisition, they guy is basically shooting his progress in the foot. I think his ulterior motive may be to control social perceptions. Kind of a waste of time, and money when one can just speak. As for the main question, why one choice over the other when they both go both hand in hand. We’re always transitioning form one form of existence to another. Saving the world and reshaping the world are two sides of the same coin.


snklkjnqqe t1_iwpvxjz wrote

Eat less meat. Fly less. Support local sustainable businesses. Vote for Democrats.


Eschenhardt t1_iwq7701 wrote

Live a simpler life with as little dependence on technology as possible. If you badly need a car, get an old one. Stop listening to people who try to tell you buying new stuff is environment friendly.


THurricaneNate t1_iwqooey wrote

A standard deduction of $25,000 in the United States.

It would:

Stimulate the economy Lessen the impacts of poverty Encourage more people to go on to higher education

To offset the money lost in taxes:

Add 1/2% to all the tax brackets. Stop overspending on our military

Logistically we don't need to intervene in anything outside of the United States.

We don't need to send billions to distant wars, we don't need to pretend to care about other countries just to secure our oil and gas supplies


THurricaneNate t1_iwqqgti wrote

Specifically the United (?) States

  1. Raise standard deduction to $20,000.

  2. Reduce dependency on non renewables.

  3. Research and invest in renewables to decrease dependency on non renewables.

  4. Stay out of other countries and focus on defending our own.

  5. Taking care of our veterans, our homeless, our poor people and those underrepresented in colleges, government and positions of power.

  6. Raising the standard of living.

  7. Raising the legal age to buy tobacco/ vape/ marijuana/ alcohol products to 25.

  8. More education on the harmful effects of tobacco, vape, marijuana, alcohol if they are not used in moderation and responsibly.

  9. Remove those politicians / those in government that just care about money and power Retain those who actually care about cooperation, and enhancing the lives of the citizens of their country.


StSalvage t1_iwqrsj4 wrote

Spread out. Tiny areas can't support dense populations without producing mountains of waste and sewage most of which could have been composted for next years harvest locally or even right there in your own garden. A garden you'd have if you spread out.

Less or no animal products. A mixture of small local renewable energy grids and off grid home electricity generation.


colonizetheclouds t1_iwrux92 wrote

Embrace energy abundance.

Nuclear powerplants everywhere, more fertilizer for developing nations.


randomizedpuppet t1_iws0dfy wrote

There are too many humans on earth.

Grand strategy solution:

Somehow a lot of humans have to be taken out of poverty and also be educated as that leads to them to having fewer children and healthier, more productive lives. This would slowly decrease the population ( as seen in more developed countries ) on earth.

Technology has to be researched that can care for and keep the majority of older age population productive and healthier for longer as the younger population become a minority. A healthy longevity for all.

People should be able to live free, the way they want, in their preferred culture and political system of choice. There should be a way to end all wars with less people having to compete for land or resources.

Most of earth would be left for nature to populate, with us there researching and learning more about our world of course. Most humans living in huge high tech cities ( mega cities ) that produces no non-recyclable waste and food grown indoors ( vertical farming, aqua farming and others). There should be smaller societies outside of these huge cities, these smaller societies more or less blending into nature, preserving older techniques of farming including hunting and fishing, living for those who prefer that kind of life. Including those primitive tribes that have little or no contact with our civilization.

Energy should come from fusion and other environmentally friendly sources.

With a highly educated population on earth we can find ways to spread our species and life itself to the neighboring stars. Earth's existence is finite.


Slow-Substance-6800 t1_iwscp23 wrote

Cities should be super densely populated and self sufficient, then we can transform the entire countryside in forests again.


EastRS t1_iwtpemu wrote

Support artists like who are trying to figure this one out.

Prob can scare 2 birds with 1 stone


imafrigginplasticbag t1_iwtsff4 wrote

Elon musk and what he's doing is just not what we need. For starters do you have any idea how far off we are technologically to terraform anothr planet that is a barren red wasteland with some ice?

Instead of indulging in pushing humans to new horizons, why doesn't he use the wide range of resources in tesla and space X to improve the wellbeing of the planet we live on that's currently being eaten alive by the endless cycle of Capitalism which destroys what we rely on in consequence for constant growth.

I'll tell you why space X is so fixated on Mars. Bc terraforming the earth is just too familiar and not cool enough.

God damn we would get more use colonising the moon rn than Mars.

We don't need another planet, we need to prevent our current planet from imploding. Humans don't deserve to colonise the new frontier of space if our home planet is a mess.

Look Elon musk's besr quality to his business model is exploring out of the box possibilities eith our current tech. He's probably thinking even if what he pushes to create with his companies fajls, it could contribute to future development. But then why doesn't he focus that on more immediately dangerous and NECESSARY things. I just don't get it.


nickpofig t1_iwu2lly wrote

What does better world even mean? We exploit and fit the world and others to our needs - it will stop only if we all die.

And how can you even say that world is getting worse or better? In the end, your perception of "state of the world" is just a feeling. You don't have enough information to give somewhat objective score. You will never have. The world is too big with too much of moving parts for you to make an accurate forecast.

My suggestion: be simple, solve problems, enjoy what you have, don't get fanatical (or you will ruin my day someday).

P.s. what I can say is that all problems we have right now are product of other humans and our deals with them. Examples: you need to work 8 hours every work day even though humanity produces much more food than everyone really needs, we can create home (comfortablr and with basic needs) for everyone with machines and resources we have already, we can provide medicine and heal every illed person. Including prevention of horrible genetic mutations in early child development for every such child. Nature does not stop us anymore. We just can't figure out how to manage and control ourselves.


OliverSparrow t1_iwuu33a wrote

Reduce population to around 2.5 bn, with a heaty dose of eugenics in how it is managed. OK: boo hiss, but that is the true problem, too many people.


ToolTime100 t1_iww4e4k wrote

avoid being ruled by elitist snobs that think they know better than everyone else.


Born-Worth-5611 OP t1_ix7hjk7 wrote

I appreciate all the comments, they all help me to see the future more optimistically. As a result of considering all the comments and doing some research on my own, I found some companies that provide solutions that allow or assist individuals in contributing to the world. These are the top 3 companies I found interesting. I would appreciate your thoughts on these companies as well.


HealthOk8618 t1_iwpyzfh wrote

If we could solve greed that would probably solve a lot of corruption. there just might be less reason to spend trillions on military spending worldwide. Leaving every country time and money to solve other issues like hunger and climate change


brycyclecrash t1_iwph55r wrote

My original comment was deleted for being too short so; Tax billionaires out of existence. Tax billionaires out of existence. Tax billionaires out of existence.Tax billionaires out of existence.Tax billionaires out of existence. Tax billionaires out of existence. Tax billionaires out of existence. Tax billionaires out of existence.Tax billionaires out of existence.Tax billionaires out of existence.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iwpmqb4 wrote

But like... how? Most billionaires are billionaires in the form of equity, not actual cash.

You can tax their dividends more or increase capital gains tax, for example, but that's just a small piece of the pie.

You can't really tax their equity appreciation because that fundamentally doesn't make much sense. It would be like the government taxing you if the housing prices go up in your region (assuming your home appreciated too). You don't have that money, the market simply decided the homes are worth more now. You'd potentially have to sell your home just to pay the taxes to the government, which would create a bunch of issues.

I suppose you can force them to sell equity, but that could cause severe artificial disruptions in the market due to all billionaires selling their holdings (plunging prices and causing a recession) and also being a breach of private property.


[deleted] t1_iwpn4aq wrote

Most people don’t think about how their “solution” could be realistically applied in the first place. Whatever one might think, attempting to tax the rich will always end up hurting the poor more than the rich themselves.


brycyclecrash t1_iwqfmls wrote

Little things like Capital gains tax, monopoly busting, and regulations on the stock market. I'm no economist but I know it's possible and won't hurt the poor.


YaAbsolyutnoNikto t1_iwqjfns wrote

Yes, but all those things (like we have in the EU) don’t invalidate the existence of billionaires because, once more, their wealth tends to be in assets, not cash.

They still exist, it’s just harder to get there. So you’re definitely not “taxing them out of existence “


brycyclecrash t1_iwrqnv8 wrote

It's also a hypothetical scenario. So in my fantasy all that shit has been worked out.


Shot-Job-8841 t1_iwr6ytn wrote

I guess you could tax their loans against their equity. If the was a tax whenever they borrowed money they might end up just selling and paying tax.


[deleted] t1_iwpe4iw wrote

Tax the shit out of the mega rich and indict them of tax evasion, and throw them in jail to let them rot if we have to. Quit having kids. Turn off things you dont need to be on, like your computer if youre going away for prolonged periods of time.


brycyclecrash t1_iwpfas0 wrote

Instead of saying, "quit having kids", say educate women. It's way more palatable. The result is women having fewer children and having them later in life.


chasonreddit t1_iwpnh3y wrote

> Tax the shit out of the mega rich and indict them of tax evasion, and throw them in jail to let them rot if we have to.

You do realize that this is exactly the same as saying "Take the money away from rich people by force"? So confiscation and redistribution?


[deleted] t1_iwppkmv wrote

How much taxes do the rich pay?

We have all the right to take it away from them with force


seekknowledge4ever t1_iwpdhr7 wrote

There are many critical actions, due to the urgency of our situation. This is my short list:

  • Stop having children.
  • Lower consumption to basic levels (including buying second hand)
  • Recycle as much as possible.

sgx71 t1_iwpbrpw wrote

Cut down in offspring. We're 8 billion now, there aren't enought resources to sustain this.


symonym7 t1_iwpd870 wrote

Global demographic collapse is already happening.


brycyclecrash t1_iwpewul wrote

If your goal is lower fertility rates, the action should be free education for women.