Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Can anyone save the world?

  1. Dec 6, 2004 #1
    I don't know if anyone remembers, but a couple years ago Bono (of the band U2) was on the cover of Time magazine. That fact was/is improtant to hardcore U2 fans because something like only 3 bands have been on the cover ever, but anyway, that's beside the point. The headline of that magazien cover read "Can Bono Save the World?". This, in turn, led me to wonder, can anyone save the world? Can any one group of people, no matter how large, save the world? What is entailed in saving the world?

    Jordan Veale

    I hope this is appropriate to the forum, I read the posting rules, but I can't really 'flesh out' the details much more than that without specific inquiries from people.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 6, 2004 #2
    How to dismantle an Atomic Bomb?..is the title of their latest album, if this was taken literally, like someone actully give details of 'How to dismantle an atomic bomb', then by Reverse-Engineering one can foolheartedly give out the process of Atomic Bomb creation?

    The only way is NOT to create bombs in the first place, this applies to any destructive device.

    I am a big fan of U2, but can 'Bono' save the world?..I think not, this is because of the complex nature of people's beliefs and no fault of Bono Himself.

    Some people believe that destruction of others, is a devine right installed into religeous martyrdom, but this interpretation is no fault of Religion, but is caused by 'individual' bias and personal anger?..hate?..and many other human traits that make life so complex.

    We all need to 'change' thats for sure, can one man make us all change?
     
  4. Dec 6, 2004 #3
    Solutions for saving the world: Well, for someone or a group of people to save the world, there must be someone who can destroy the world. So kiling the one who can (and also wants to) destroy the world equals saving the world, right?

    The faces of world destruction: Besides bombs, giant meteors, or golbal warming, there are also the the destructioin caused by thought memes. If the notion, 'Ignite-Explosives-to-kill-innocent-people-and-you-will-rise-into-Heaven', spreads around, it would mean the world is in the process of commiting suicide.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2004 #4
    The onus is on idividual thinks?..what one see's as an 'innocent' another can justify as a 'Guilty'.

    I do not subscibe to martyrdom, unless the Innocent victims end up at the same location as the Guilty, and are thus given the same opportunity to return the 'action-event' to those who performed the act of faith that got them there?

    If a single innocent victim is given the opportunity to 'blow-up' martyrs from heaven, then where do these martyrs end up? :devil:
    Addendum
    One Martyr's Heaven, is another Martyr's Hell!
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2004
  6. Dec 7, 2004 #5
    Thanks a lot guys~ I love those threads...

    Just want to say, I worship Bono forever, and U2 really rocks the world...
     
  7. Dec 7, 2004 #6
  8. Dec 8, 2004 #7
    What do those words mean?
    At what point would the world be considered saved?
    Even a rock band can greatly encourage good actions and beliefs, or at least seem mimic the belief system of the listener.
     
  9. Dec 8, 2004 #8
    It's relative. Hitler thought he was saving the world. What one person think as saving the world, one person may consider irreversible damage. For example, Communism was thought to save the world, but now look at Russia. It's filthy. However, if the world is faced with physical destruction, there might be a way to save it. It's probably not going to be a rock-star though.
     
  10. Dec 9, 2004 #9

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I'd say this belongs either in General Discussion, or, at best, in Politics and World Affairs.
     
  11. Dec 9, 2004 #10

    hypnagogue

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Moved from General Philosophy.
     
  12. Dec 11, 2004 #11
    absolute dehumanization is the only solution. homo sapiens are one screwed up species.
     
  13. Dec 11, 2004 #12
    You can save the world. Everyone here can save the world. If everyone stood for their own individual rights, nobody could take them away.

    The problem is government. Nothing is the bigger perpetrator of individual rights and life than a government in general. Study history. Read the warnings by people like Alexis de Tocqueville. As long as a government claims over 35% of the average taxpayer's earnings, feeding parasitically off of the people, producing useless paperwork and laws, and forcibly locks away children to indoctrinate them to be distracted, uncaring, emotionally damaged adults with no drive to do anything, the world will remain unfree; statism will remain the norm.
     
  14. Dec 12, 2004 #13
    We could save the world, with humility. If we would take a back seat to every other natural process, the world could be saved. Not quite as intense as the Jains, but close. It would require the most profound respect and at the same time a realization that all time spent is the same. If we were to savor our moments, slow down, and live on a much more modest scale a lot of the world could remain as it has always been.

    There is huge consternation in nations whose birth rates have hit the negative. They should be rejoicing, but we have predicated our economic system on eternal expansion, which means the destruction and consumption of the world's living things, and resources.

    In stead of seeing a need for balance and accommodating it, as best we can; other factors will now do it for us. Predation, war, and climate change. I am somewhat romantically attached to the beauty and bio-diversity of this world, whether by design or accident, it seems a shame to alter the basic balance of things.

    I suspect that our disrespect for the natural world, will be revisited upon us tenfold. The world will live with or without us, and we are so complicated, that the world with it's simpler life forms, can lie in wait for all of our disturbances to end. Millennia after we end, the other life in this world, will live simply again.

    The question might better be put, who can save us?
     
  15. Dec 12, 2004 #14
    Save the world from what?
     
  16. Dec 13, 2004 #15
    In your case, apathy.
     
  17. Dec 13, 2004 #16
    Good point. Seems like the cure is worse than the illness.

    so forget politics, what about saving us from global warming? Hmmm, 15 years ago we were being warned about the next ice-age. so what should we do, heat the world up or cool it down? what's this weeks fashion?

    With our limited capacity to see the context in which these problems happen, and limited ability to see the results of our actions to resolve the problems, perhaps the best thing to do is...

    ...do nothing. sit cross-legged, chant whale slogans, and wait for the coming of Superman.
    Or wait for aliens, for whom we'll make great pets.
    Or vote for George W Bush again, to prove the first two times weren't a mistake.
    Or buy U2's latest CD. Or burn our bras. Or drown in bars. Or quote The Bard. or...

    What was the question again?
     
  18. Dec 16, 2004 #17
    Thanks, I appreciate help from a non-apathic person. However my question was in the spirit of the title and thus concerned the entire world, not just me.

    Perhaps you are looking for one person to save everybody else from poverty, global warming, diseases, violence? A modern Jesus-like person?

    Personnally, unless someone can enlighten me on the subject, I don't think it's anyone else's responsibility but our own. Hopefully, no one is only waiting for some one else to solve all the world's problems.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?