The question is: What will you do about it? It will take much more than a discussion on this science-oriented forum to create some momentum toward sustainability. Are you living sustainably already, or are you working toward that goal? Have you thought of a way to give rational thinkers a unified voice that world leaders will listen to?

You said: " It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations." I assume you meant save the Earth from destruction. The Earth will survive the reckless activities of a hyper-industrious species of ape. So will life, albeit in a simpler form. It is humanity that we should be most concerned about. How do we preserve Nature's one creature that can comprehend existence?

To preserve ourselves, we must preserve the systems that serve and support us. These systems are all natural, but we have come to view Nature as something to be subdued and conquered. Biosynomics Institute is asking questions and working toward sustainable solutions, but an international effort will be needed to achieve anything meaningful.

By my analysis, the greatest barrier we face is the world monetary system, a fiction that we all believe in and refuse to examine. This system is a proxy for status. That is, the only thing you can do with money is pay for the labor of another human. Without other humans, money is meaningless, and without money the only way you can get something that you did not make is through status within your social group. Money, therefore, is a proxy for status that can be usurped, stolen, hoarded, appropriated, etc. The problem with such a proxy is that it makes greed possible. Greed, in turn, makes us focus on what we can gather unto ourselves. It allows us to address our own concerns before thinking about what sustains all of us.

I share your sentiments. We are in trouble. But what global solutions can we discover in a world where greed is condoned?

The question is: What will you do about it? It will take much more than a discussion on this science-oriented forum to create some momentum toward sustainability. Are you living sustainably already, or are you working toward that goal? Have you thought of a way to give rational thinkers a unified voice that world leaders will listen to?

You said: " It is necessary to save the Earth through destruction for future generations." I assume you meant save the Earth from destruction. The Earth will survive the reckless activities of a hyper-industrious species of ape. So will life, albeit in a simpler form. It is humanity that we should be most concerned about. How do we preserve Nature's one creature that can comprehend existence?

To preserve ourselves, we must preserve the systems that serve and support us. These systems are all natural, but we have come to view Nature as something to be subdued and conquered. Biosynomics Institute is asking questions and working toward sustainable solutions, but an international effort will be needed to achieve anything meaningful.

By my analysis, the greatest barrier we face is the world monetary system, a fiction that we all believe in and refuse to examine. This system is a proxy for status. That is, the only thing you can do with money is pay for the labor of another human. Without other humans, money is meaningless, and without money the only way you can get something that you did not make is through status within your social group. Money, therefore, is a proxy for status that can be usurped, stolen, hoarded, appropriated, etc. The problem with such a proxy is that it makes greed possible. Greed, in turn, makes us focus on what we can gather unto ourselves. It allows us to address our own concerns before thinking about what sustains all of us.

I share your sentiments. We are in trouble. But what global solutions can we discover in a world where greed is condoned?

I share the sentiments and the comments in this discussion. It is time for us to rethink our understanding of "economic growth". Instead of moving on and sticking with the previous logical force it needs something different. As Watzlawick, Weakland and Fisch described, precious solutions are in a second-order (1974, 2011). The practical manifestations of second-order change appear as illogical and paradoxical.

That's right. The definition of development as captured by growth theory or the use of per capita income is too limited particularly as it affect Third World Societies. The reasons are just simple;

1. The use of GNP or per capita income refers or defines standard of living in quantitative sense, it does not take into account the quality of life of the people.

2. Per capita income is perhaps not relevant in Third World societies where subsistenfrom production is promine and important.

3. It does not show the distribution of incomes among classes and groups of people.

4. Per capita income figures cannot reveal the serious inequality that exists between the urban and rural areas.

Besides it has been argued that for the economic growth theory or use of GNP to make meaning to Third World Societies, it must tailored toward the poor. In other words we must have PRO- POOR Growth. Development must also include strategies for the ones coming after us.

We must also recognize that earth's human population HAS TO cease growing, and societies must adapt to a population age structure with large numbers of older people -- a scenario that humans have never had to face until recent years. Japan is now feeling it, and others will too. This is too scary a prospect for economic planners and business people to deal with, and so they pretend that population growth is a necessity for economic survival, and both must continue forever. Some nations with low birth rates are now encouraging immigration (selective, of course) to boost the proportion of young working people, as required to support their aging population. The alternative is much shorter average lifespans -- the most likely scenario if we don't actively accept and deal with the population problem.

Randall Reiserer's statement above really captures the essence of the problem: "the only thing you can do with money is pay for the labor of another human. Without other humans, money is meaningless, and without money the only way you can get something that you did not make is through status within your social group". We must find ways to build an economy and social structure that can persist with a smaller number of working-age people and suitable useful work for older people. We need to think of human population like a mature climax forest, and less like a recently cleared field ripe for rapid growth. And we will have to deal with the disappointment of having less abundance of material "stuff".

Yes, it is time to change the civilization development strategy globally and focus on sustainable socio-economic development.

First, to civilize is to educate a society so that its way of life especially the general customs and beliefs of a particular group of people at a particular time becomes more developed. The crux of this lies in who is to educate and who will be educated. This actually is what is currently in practice: an imposition of an alien culture on an unprepared group and this leads to both a destruction of the existing culture and the introduced alien one.

Sustainable socio-economic development on the other hand is simply allowing particular cultures to develop from within. This does not bring anything alien but it is development that can be sustained from within. The growth of China and the 'Asian Tigers' are good examples of the latter whereas the so called 'developing countries' often referred to as 'third world countries' are examples of the former.

Thank you very much for your answers, for comments and interesting scientific information.

The discussed issue in the above discussion is particularly important, so I invite you to continue the discussion on this topic.

Is it time to change the civilization development strategy globally and focus on sustainable socio-economic development?

Please reply. I invite you to the discussion.

In the 21st century, various solutions based on ecological innovations, renewable energy technologies, green economy, clean economy, reclamation of secondary raw materials, etc. should be developed. This way, added value can be generated based on the synergy achieved in parallel, mutually supporting processes. In this way, this kind of ecological added value can help to create a new economy in the future based on more sustainable development.

In view of the above, I am asking you: How can you describe, explore and measure the ecological added value resulting from the synergy of pro-ecological activities ...?

I invite you to the discussion.

Sustainable development can be achieved by various methods. Which method will be selected is determined by many factors of the environment, the environment of specific economic processes as well as the specifics of economic enterprises and the national economy. However, in the absence of a key development factor, a key raw material such as water can be a significant cost barrier for the implementation of the process of achieving sustainable development. Sustainable development can not be excluded in the context of continuous irrigation of agriculture, but it will generate high costs. In such a situation, profitable ventures should be developed in the domestic economy, which will allow to finance the costs of the said irrigation. It can not be ruled out that irrigated poor soil with proper fertilization and use will produce high yields, high production of agricultural produce will be generated and after a few or more years, it will be possible to create more complex flora ecosystems, including forests next to arable fields, and the way can be improved. Then, sustainable development will be analyzed, implemented and improved in terms of the national economy.

I invite you to the discussion

Is it time to change the civilization development strategy globally and focus on sustainable socio-economic development? Will "ECONOMY" help in this, will "NEW ECONOMY" help in the 21st century?

Yes, it is necessary to change the development strategy based on intensifying the exploitation of the Earth's resources on the sustainable development strategy. It is necessary to develop new energy technologies based on renewable energy sources to slow down the progressing greenhouse effect of the Earth in order to reduce the risk of dramatic natural cataclysms. It is necessary to develop ecological innovations, while it may not be too late. It is necessary to save the Earth from destruction for future generations.

The 21st century is the last moment to introduce global sustainable development based on the development of renewable energy and ecological innovations. Sustainable development should be analyzed and measured in correlation with the analysis of economic growth and the share of individual sectors in the country's economic development, including the transformation of traditional energy sources into renewable energy, environment reclamation and recovery of recyclable materials, and ecological innovations.

I invite you to the discussion

Yes its process is already started

What next generation? Our environment is so toxic that 1 in 58 boys in the USA is diagnosed with autism. in 1960 it was 1 in 10,000 and before that the disease was not known. Do we really think that Freud, Young, Piaget, Pavlov, and a raft of other doctors and psychologists just missed these arm-flapping, head-banging children--LUDICROUS!

Our national healthcare agencies want us to believe that doctors have just become better at diagnosing the illness, that it is a genetic disease of the brain, that the rapid inversion in the relative frequencies of autism and Down's Syndrome doesn't mean anything. WTF? I'm not that stupid. Autism is obviously environmentally induced. The fact that some people have cured it using radical detox is the smoking gun, but Francis Collins (head of NIH) has his religious head in the sand.

Americans are in full-blown metabolic syndrome with rates of diabetes growing at a break-neck pace (even in children) and many other chronic inflammatory diseases are on that freight train, too. Have you been to a grade school lately? There are 30 EpiPens in the principle's office and kids are dying from inhaling the chaff from a peanut! I am old enough to remember when none of this was happening, but it is now the new normal.

If the current trend holds for autism, by 2033 half of all boys born in the USA will have be on the spectrum (and 1/3 or so of girls), and the rest of the developed and developing world is close behind. How will we sustain a military? Who will do the jobs that men do at present? Will the roads, bridges, and buildings simply fall into disrepair? If Feminists wants their chance to govern, they will have it soon enough, but it wont be a world worth being in charge of. We will all be sick and in need of medical care, but how might we afford to pay the bills? Who is going to take care of all the dysfunctional adults that we will soon have in the USA?

We need to open our eyes and think about the exponential functions operating around us. Politicians are not particularly good at thinking about exponential growth, but we had better teach them quick. We urgently need to wake up and take control of the nightmare that our addiction to unnatural toxins has put us in. Our fisheries are in full, worldwide collapse, acid is falling from the skies, millions of tons of plastics drift and swirl about in the oceans, our landfill sludge is seeping into the groundwater, and a damaged nuclear power plant is still spilling radioactive cesium into the Pacific with no end in sight.

We are so far from sustainability that it seem a joke to even mention reasonable goals. Hell, global climate change should be the least of our worries. There are much bigger threats. Talking about a development strategy is like plugging your ears and yelling la la la La LA! We need to start talking about environmental triage.

There are thousands of chemical--new to nature--in our environment that we have no way of adapting to. What did we think would happen? I'm reminded of the dummies who think that Rachael Carson was wrong, that the silent spring never happened. Well, it has happened--it IS happening. The Audubon society recently reported that 80% of the birds have disappeared from the Midwest, not species but individuals. In my home sate of Kansas, there are so few birds that on a late summer drive between Wichita and Kansas City--a three hour trip--I saw three birds. And I'm a bird enthusiast, not a casual observer. What's worse, there was not one bug on my windshield on that late summer drive--not one. What would the birds eat? Worse still, when I tell the clean windshield story people think its a good thing. We are all asleep.

Dariusz, if you really want to do something to change the global development strategy, just convince third-world countries to avoid what the developed world has done to the environment. Just give it some time and they will inherit the earth--the meek will have it after all.

Earlier this year, I formed Biosynomics Institute to begin to address some of our sustainability problems. I am working with others to address some of our most urgent needs, but there is much to do and time is short. If you have a mind (and stomach) for difficult problems, look us up on the web and get in contact with us. We want to build a global team of awakened thinkers who are not afraid to speak out.