A Plan for The Nations – Step Two

Byron, Arnold J. | March 13, 2018 | Leave a Comment Download as PDF

The Chicago Theological Seminary Building at the University of Chicago by Justin KernFlickr | CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The purpose of this writing is to outline a hands-on, work-oriented plan that will heal the planet and save humanity from the ravages of global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster. NO! STOP! The forgoing statement does not explain the purpose of this writing. The purpose of this writing is to outline an idea for an entity that will be in charge of administrating a hands-on, work-oriented plan that will heal the planet and save humanity from the ravages of global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster. We all spend so much time and energy on what needs to be done that we do not have enough energy to decide on who is going to do the work. This writing is about who is going to do the work.

More often than not, when I bring up the topic of overpopulation among friends and family I am told, “Let the United Nations do it.” The problem is that there is no reason to believe that the United Nations will be able to devise a plan and make it work. The United Nations is too ponderous, too steeped in protocol and too manipulated by the larger, richer countries to make a plan that will work. Even if the United nations came up with a workable plan it would take only one security council country to prevent anything from happening by simply casting a veto.

The United Nations does a lot of good in the world, but it seems to me that sometimes there is more talk than action. The United Nations is essential as a player in any effort to save humanity from overpopulation, global warming and nuclear disaster. The role that the United Nations must play is to encourage and support the colleges and universities worldwide in their effort to take on this noble task.

I have designed and published a framework for an entity that can be put in charge; can order the work that needs to be done; and will see that this work is done. The article I am writing today describes this framework. My framework does not rely on the United Nations. It relies on the colleges and universities of the world. I chose colleges and universities because nearly every nation has colleges and universities. In addition, academia has outstanding talents in every field of endeavor: science, engineering, religion, humanities, law and business.

I want the colleges and universities of the world to begin working together to build the framework that I am proposing, but it is the politicians who will decide the fate of the world. I want the colleges and universities to begin approaching the politicians with a plan for the framework. We have to recognize that these institutions are part of the political commons of the people. The presidents and boards of regents of colleges and universities have standing with politicians. Politicians will listen when universities speak. Think of how much clout colleges and universities will have as they work together and speak with one voice. Think of how much more clout politicians would feel if the United Nations were assisting the colleges and universities.

It is axiomatic to say that if you want to get a job done you put one person in charge. This is the crux of my framework. My plan requires that the nations of the world agree to create a global entity and give that entity the responsibility to reset the carbon dioxide level to two hundred eighty parts per million, reset the population level to about two and a half billion people, and end the use of everything nuclear. My plan will require that the nations of the world agree to provide the support, protection and wherewithal that this entity will need, to do the job.

Who will be in charge of the global entity? What will it look like? How will it function? I have answered all of these questions in a previous blog article entitled A Plan for the Nations and at the following link, Of Population and Pollution: Chapter 12. The global entity, that I have named the Alliance, is a committee of twelve chosen from the science and comparative religion departments of colleges and universities worldwide. I explain how these members will be chosen in the above link to A Plan for the Nations.

The Alliance will determine what work needs to be done, give the orders to do the work and see that the work is done. The Alliance will have two subcommittees, the Committee of the Prominent and the Association. These are the names I have given the three main components of my framework. More descriptive names can be made up by the legal departments of the colleges and universities as they write all of the laws and rules that will make this framework a reality.

Why did I choose members of the science and comparative religion departments as the people who will be the leaders in saving humanity and healing the planet? They are as smart and capable as anyone and they are likely to not have special agendas. I notice a lot of discussion about two types of people; the we people and the me people. Who do I want to be among the twelve-people chosen to serve on the Alliance? I want people who are regarded as trustworthy by their peers.

The watchwords that I have imposed on myself as I consider these global problems are the following two simple sentences. It’s all about the living. It’s all about the future. Arguments become moot under the light of grace. It makes no difference whether the grace is by a God or by a humanistic value; it is by grace that our leaders work purposefully for the good of mankind. No decision should be made that will result in the death of a living person. No decisions should be made that will shorten the lifespan of humanity. The lifespan of the Sun should determine the lifespan of humanity. Saving humanity can happen only if it is all about the living; and only if it is all about the future. Make it so.

The members who serve on the Committee of the Prominent will be appointed by the Alliance and serve at the pleasure of the Alliance. These members will be the most highly regarded people in the world and their emissaries. They will assist the Alliance in maintaining working relations with the nations and in securing money and goodwill from oligarchs and other people of power. How many prominents and emissaries will the Alliance need? Multiple teams of prominents and emissaries may have to be dispatched to and be active in many places of the globe at the same time. Many emissaries may need to be appointed for each prominent.

The Association will be a committee of twelve members. These members will be elected three each from four categories of candidates: science, religion, business and government. The Alliance will set up criteria for each of these categories and the committee members will be chosen by using the same election procedure as was used to elect the members to the Alliance. The association will serve at the pleasure of the Alliance. The Alliance will be in charge.

The Association will be the workhorse for the Alliance. It will be responsible for the completion of the projects the Alliance has ordered done. The Association will have offices all over the world. The Association will make contracts, hire workers, purchase supplies and do the hands-on work that is ordered by the Alliance. The Association can be expected to become large and bureaucratic in its operations. A company hired by the Association to do a single piece of work could be a cooperative, a private company, a not-for profit corporation, a for-profit corporation or a multinational corporation.

How will this global entity be created?

My vision is to have the legal departments of the colleges and universities worldwide draw up nonbinding treaties among nations until a majority of nations are in agreement. The nonbinding agreements will then become binding agreements from which will be constructed a constitution that will govern the relationships among the nations and also between the global entity and the nations. The global entity will thusly be created from that constitution. The legal departments of the colleges and universities are a part of the public domain they will be able to put this all together without being pressured with agendas from outside sources.

In addition to treaties and constitutions, a whole new set of laws and rules will have to be promulgated worldwide with every nation having the exact same laws and rules. The legal departments of colleges and universities can do all this as well.

With regard to global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster

If I were to be asked I would suggest that the Alliance decide that the carbon dioxide level of the globe be reset to two hundred eighty parts per million; that the population level be reset to about two and a half billion people; and that the world end the use of everything nuclear.

Ending thoughts

1. Population levels must be in sync with available resources.

2. Advances in medicine have increased the human lifespan, contributing to overpopulation. The Alliance must deal with this conundrum.

3. Properly executed population controls that will be ordered by the Alliance will not be accepted unless they provide balance, stability and happiness.

4. Several years ago, when I first started my elemental thinking about the problems facing humanity and the planet, I began thinking that regardless the conflict between science and religion, i.e. creationism versus evolution, both institutions – education and religion – are so integrated into the population worldwide that any solution must be predicated on these two institutions. I tend to conflate the concept of education with the sciences.

5. It became evident to me that no agreement can be made globally if there is only fundamentalist thinking; therefore, I could not look for religious authority among the leaders of active religious sects. I needed to choose leaders from a place where religions are amalgamated or at least studied together. I chose the more liberal arts categorizations of colleges and universities.

6. This does not mean that publicly known religious leaders do not deserve to be chosen to serve on the Committee of the Prominent.

7. So, upon whom does the saving of humanity depend: the professors and students of the science, engineering, comparative religion, humanities, law, and business departments of colleges and universities worldwide. I am asking the colleges and universities worldwide to break the inertia. They must begin talking to each other to develop a plan that can be used to bring the nations together to authorize a central governmental entity such as the Alliance.

8. The Alliance will be a committee of twelve people, but these twelve will not be acting alone. They will have all of the nations, the colleges and universities, the religious orders and businesses large and small telling them how to decide. Final decisions will be up to the twelve.

9. Once put in place the Alliance will be with us for a very long time if not forever.

10. The committee members will change from time to time depending on term limits and other rules. All of these rules can be part and parcel of the constitution enacted by the nations. Let me suggest that new Alliance members always be elected from science and comparative religion departments as was done in the first election when the Alliance was first set up.

11. The Alliance will decide how to reduce the population and carbon dioxide emissions. But first it is up to the colleges and universities worldwide to decide how to set up the Alliance.

12. So far as I know, this is the first administrative and work oriented plan to be put forward for public consumption. Other plans should be invented and put forward so that humanity will be able to choose among more than one plan. But, humanity will have to choose soon. Time is short.

The MAHB Blog is a venture of the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere. Questions should be directed to joan@mahbonline.org

MAHB Blog: https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/plan-for-nations/

Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn
The views and opinions expressed through the MAHB Website are those of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect an official position of the MAHB. The MAHB aims to share a range of perspectives and welcomes the discussions that they prompt.
  • JohnTaves

    “The Alliance will decide how to reduce the population and carbon dioxide emissions”

    Here lies the problem. There is one and only one way to reduce the population in a humane manner, and when that happens, the carbon dioxide emissions must fall. I don’t intend to say that if the population decreases by 10%, the CO2 will decrease. I mean that if we average less than 2, CO2 emissions have no choice but to fall eventually. If we can put in place a mechanism that ensures we average less than 2, then this can happen long enough to the point where the population no longer uses resources faster than they renew. That future generation can then allow an average of 2. We don’t need to concern ourselves with what population size that might be.

    Working backwards, how is it possible to ensure we do not average more than 2? Well, our population scientists, like Paul Ehrlich, one of the principles of the MAHB, would like us to believe that because the birth rate has trended lower all we have to do is ensure that the things that correlate to “low birth rate” happen everywhere. This is trash science. A trend and a correlation provide no assurance of anything. Ever.

    Imagine that your goals become reality such that we do average less than 2 for long enough to get our numbers down to the point where we no longer consume resources faster than they renew, and then they average 2 for say 1000 years. Let’s interview the people at that time and ask them how many children their ancestors had. Everyone will say that their ancestors averaged less than 2. You might get the answer, “my grandparents had one, then twins, so the next generation stopped at 4 total grandchildren for them”. If you ask everyone on the planet that question, everyone will answer similarly. You will find nobody that says, “we believe that it is better to have a lot of children”. Nobody.

    Why is that? Well, if your descendants average more than 2, your descendants will attempt to drive the population to infinity even if everyone else on the planet has zero babies. Zero.

    How do you ensure that nobody has the belief that it is OK, or it is good, or god wants you to have more than 2 cihldren? Well, you’d better tell everyone the consequences of averaging more than 2. What is the consequence? Imagine the population is at a fixed limit. It simply cannot grow. Now imagine that we average 3 babies. What must happen? Only 2 can become adults on average because if more become an adult, the population is growing. This means that 1/3rd of the children must die. Notice that the environment can be in great shape or not. The standard of living is irrelevant. We can live like kings, or live like inmates of a gulag. The only thing that must happen is dead children. There’s a formula that tells us the rate that children must die when we average more than 2 babies: (x-2)/x. Averaging too many babies only kills children and kills only children. Everyone must know this. Everyone.

    The author of this article and the ones that commented on this article do not seem to know this. Joel Cohen wrote a huge book called “How Many People Can Earth Support?” He doesn’t seem to know this. Paul Ehrlich does not seem to know this. He wrote an article that was published on MAHB about how economists should recognize that infinite economic growth was impossible. What a waste of breath. Surely any population scientist that knows this would be teaching this and ensuring that these simple math facts are taught in every school. That is the goal of scientists, right? Learn the facts and teach them, right? Have you ever heard the formula (x-2)/x? Everyone needs to know it, but nobody actually does. Nobody.

    You have no chance of ensuring we do not average more than 2 if our population scientists do not have a goddamn clue about the fundamental principles behind the very topic they are supposed to be experts on.

  • Mary Lehmann

    A couple of simple suggestions:
    * Use the word “overconsumption”, not “overpopulation”

    * Use some other word besides “Prominent” –more neutral like “Electors”.

    * Get George Monbiot to work out how this will be a grassroots will of the world’s people. It can be done, for it surely won’t work otherwise.

    My opinion: You’re on the right track, and I wish to participate for the rest of my life (not much of it left).

    • Arnold Byron

      Thank you for the vote of support.
      I do have a question that needs to be considered by all humanity. How long should humanity last? I believe that this question must be answered by the generations living to day. The sun will last for two billion more years. Should the lifespan of humanity be determined by the lifespan of the sun? In making our plans for the future we must think in terms of millions of years into the future.
      The American Revolution was fought against a King and his cronies in the Northwest India Corporation. Money flows to the top so we are again fighting corporation takeover of our government. This is why, for the next million years, I want the committee I call the Alliance to be made up of university professors from the science and comparative religion departments of universities, worldwide. This is the only place on Earth that I could think of where the people will not have personal agendas that will be detrimental to the work of the Alliance.
      Be sure that you find the link in my blog article that will take you to my chapter 12 entitled A Plan for the Nations. It will tell you about electing the members to the Alliance.

    • JohnTaves

      * Use the word “overconsumption”, not “overpopulation”

      Just like nobody agrees with what “overpopulation” means, nobody will ever agree to what “overconsumption” means.

      The totally bizarre reality is that there cannot be an agreed on definition for “overconsumption”, but the the definition of “overpopulation” is already defined, is useful, and unambiguous, but nobody comprehends it. That includes our population scientists.

  • Max Kummerow

    I see these problems through a Marketing lens. Or, “diffusion of innovation.” Persuasion of 7.5 billion people is not a small task and 12 people aren’t enough to get it done, and universities are even more self-absorbed and less oriented to solving global problems than the UN. But there are examples of institutions that have been effective in promoting social change and family planning in particular. The effort sort of has to snowball–more people convinced population growth has to stop, and more support for numerous institutions to stop growth. Three examples: First, the Koch brothers political organization (read Merchants of Doubt and Dark Money). These guys changed public opinion in America–quite impressive. But it took billions of dollars and decades of steady expert PR work. A few billionaires in a few decades could do that kind of reality mindset shifting in favor of family planning, abortion and ending growth. It’s a kind of unequal PR campaign contest–a trillion in pro-growth, pro-consumption adertising and PR versus a few million scientists saying “enough is enough.” Watch the movie No about the Chilean referendum on Pinochet. Second, Jody Williams campaign against land mines. She built coalitions of coalitions of organizations into a campaign strong enough to get land mines banned (the U.S. held out–our safety apparently requires blowing people’s legs off). This was an example of amazingly small resources accomplishing a limited, clearly defined objective that most people supported from the beginning. Maybe family planning could fall in that category, especially now that reducing fertility in Africa and the Middle East seems so crucial to stopping disruptive mass migration to Europe. This approach is aided by improvements in long term contraception–IUDs for a couple of billion women and the job is done.The Europeans really ought to fund family planning campaigns in high fertility countries that are the source of immigrants. Third, top down programs were quite effective in reducing fertility in a number of Asian countries with autocratic, centralized control. Whether a two child policy run by a Lee Kuan Yew would work in Africa or Haiti, I’m not sure. But I am sure that if a country’s government sees population control as crucial to economic development, it can be accomplished. Iran is the poster child for rapid, top down fertility decline.Garrett Hardin, by the way, saw fertility decline as 200 problems–different paths in different countries rather than one global approach. That sounds right. Africans will have to design their own ways of reducing fertility and they probably won’t be the same as Korea or Singapore’s approach.

    • Arnold Byron

      I too see these problems through a marketing lens, Goodness knows, if we are going to prevent humanity from participating in a sixth extinction, we all have a huge sales job ahead of us. But, I must warn you; it seems that almost everybody sees things differently than I do.
      In your comment you have given examples of some things that have been and are being done to sell people on the importance of ameliorating or perhaps even solving the problems. You give examples of social engineering. I agree. Being savvy, working hard and having billions of dollars would go a long way to selling the population on getting involved and making lives and living better for everyone.
      I noticed that all of your examples are limited in scope. My contention is that even though we may all try to do something good to help everyone within our circle (family, friends, city, state, or nation, we will never be able to do enough to solve a problem that is global in scope.
      I see global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster as three global problems that must be solved if humanity is going to survive collapse or extinction. All of the leaders of the nations of the world have an inherent obligation to focus on solving these problems. Because all of this is global the nations of the world must be able to act as one unit to remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere; to reduce the population and to dismantle everything nuclear.
      Tooting my own horn, I have thought up the following bumper sticker length wordage: Willy Nilly Voluntary. First let me say that when everybody is busy doing everything they can to make lives better they cannot be criticized. This is not my intention. Making lives better is at the core of humanity. My concern is that if all of this voluntary effort is not coordinated and directed by some entity that is in charge, then the final goal will not be achieved. Getting this global job done will require global coordination. We cannot continue to be willy nilly voluntary. We must recognize that willy nilly voluntary will not be enough. To remove greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, reduce the number of people living on Earth and to dismantle everything nuclear, and to do this on a global scale, will require a single entity created by the leaders of the nations
      In your comment you wrote the following: “Persuasion of 7.5 billion people is not a small task and 12 people aren’t enough to get it done, and universities are even more self-absorbed and less oriented to solving global problems than the UN.” I understand how it is easy to dismiss an idea when there is only a small amount of information on which to make an evaluation. More information follows.
      Let me tell you, and all of the readers of this comment, why I think the 12 people will be enough to do the job. The 12 people who will make up the entity, which I call the Alliance, will not be elected to their positions until after the treaties between and among the nations will have been written by the law departments of the universities and negotiated and agreed to by the nations – the United Nations can play a big role here. Can you imagine the dialog among the nations that will occur when the nations begin negotiating the treaties, especially when the power and expertise of the law departments of all of the universities worldwide will be contributing to this conversation? The 12 will be given as much power and authority as the nations agree to give them; which I believe will be substantial, even more than will be needed.
      You also stated that universities are not suited to solve global problems. I agree. In my plan the universities are not expected to be the entity that will solve the problems. However, my plan depends on the presidents and boards of regents of the universities of the world to grant permission to the law departments to draft the working treaties, constitutions, laws and rules that will be needed. My plan depends on the science and comparative religion departments of colleges and universities worldwide to provide the candidates who will be elected to the Alliance. I chose people from these departments because I think this is the only place in the world where smart and capable people who do not have wrongful agendas are available. My plan also depends on the universities to encourage the business, science and engineering departments to help in any way they can. The universities will not have to solve anything, but they will be the center of putting together a program and making the program work.
      I hope this will give you a better understanding of my plan. I wish we could simply say, “Let the United Nations do it.” But the United nations has gone through nearly twenty-five years of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) meetings without finding a way to remove any carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, to reduce the global population to a negative population growth or to get rid of anything nuclear. I think this is because everything the United Nations does has to be, by its Charter, willy nilly voluntary.
      Having said that: The United Nations has to work with the universities and the national leaders worldwide to put together this global entity, the Alliance, along with its subcommittees, the Committee of the Prominent and the Association. I think that my concept will work if the nations give it a chance to work. If it is simply dismissed as untenable then the result could very well be collapse or extinction.
      In this regard, one last question I would ask is: Why do we look through the Hubbard Telescope?

    • JohnTaves

      More importantly the information you are attempting to spread has nearly zero agreement and that includes from scientists. You’ve got no chance of diffusing information that is so pliable.

      Read my comment above to get a sense of the information that, once understood, can achieve 100% agreement. That information is not understood by our scientists today.

  • Hi, I am a retired doctor with back ground in the peace movement and environmental health policy protection. I thank you, and I agree we need an entity for saving humanity, and almost all life, from the ravages of global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster. Unmitigated global warming will wipe out almost all life, on its own and by boosting the 6th extinction. When I reached 65 still looking at the State of the Planet going down faster than ever it seemed like my time had been wasted, as I realized that ever since my birth the planet (Earth) had been taken down. What scientists now call the Anthropocene, I would call the Olethrocene (Hellish total destruction). It had already dawned on me there are two kinds of people in this world. Those who know Mother Earth is the Mother of us all, and those who don’t. For almost all our time as a knowing species and much of our population today Earth has been known as Great Mother, but my people don’t. My co book is out (UNPRECEDENTED CRIME Climate Science Denial..) and I am now writing the Unprecedented Evil (6th extinction). Pope Francis has declared changing the climate a sin. Next month I will be presenting at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2018 on the Earth Emergency again, with no one really interested in ‘the unthinkable’ that we all face. We have known for a very time that our The Economy is killing the planet. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3af021573b06c8fe73a7ad29337b5638d46f8a8112abe2d4efa3683586e80483.png Extinctions along with all greenhouse gas pollution data and direct observations are at unprecedented levels and accelerating. The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has no known past precedent. Our chances of success are slim at best so we must put up the best possible struggle for our survival. There are four big drivers I see of the fast track to Hell which we are all fixed on. The first three are mass-killing warfare, the global credit banking corporations and global fossil fuel energy corporations which have gone together for years. The fourth is the world population increase, when linked to perverse economic globalization. I could put them all together as the Euro-American ruthless oppressive exploitation, now being applied to all future generations. Step one I believe is the long human tradition of Deep Peace with all life or Ahisma. As Krishnamurti said so often, that means radical change and it must be now.


    • Arnold Byron

      Thank you Dr. Carter for apparent commitment to the best interests of humanity. And thank you for agreeing that “we need an entity for saving humanity, and almost all life, from the ravages of global warming, overpopulation and nuclear disaster.” As you can see from my article and my posts of A Plan for the Nations that the nations of the world need to agree on such an entity. The problem is that everything is global and hard to do the logistics. The United Nations should have done this years ago. The United Nations has tried by arranging several world wide meetings: the Paris Accord being the latest. But the nations are unable to make the agreements by attending unwieldy meetings. It has to be done differently. That is why my thinking has gone to having the law departments of the universities of the world somehow get together and write treaties between and among the nations and leaving these treaties unbinding until a majority or a super majority on nations get on board. Then the treaties can be made binding and can be used to write a constitution among all of the nations that would include a constitution for the development of the word entity that is needed. But there is a huge amount of inertia holding back any movement. University presidents and boards of regents must be made to understand that this is the only thing that will allow the nations to begin doing the work on a global scale. The university presidents and boards need to give the university law departments permission to begin working with law departments from other universities to figure out a way that all of the law departments worldwide can engage in writing treaties for all of the nations associated with all of the universities. It will be a big job but completely doable. /can you help get this started by showing this blog to whatever cadre of university friends you may have.

    • JohnTaves

      I don’t mean to be rude, but none of your words tell anyone that we must average 2 or fewer. So, yea, I totally agree that your time was wasted. See my comment above for a description of the information that must be known, but is not.

  • John Bremer

    Karl Polanyi judged Robert Owen most effective in developing a utopia. Today, in the US, the powerful radical free market utopians following Charlie Koch and James Buchanan are wreaking havoc that must be dealt with before we move on to controlling our drive for autarky.

  • trilemmaman

    Albert Einstein and dozens of other deep thinkers have called for a world federation and a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that would have been our best chance of harmonizing humanities mental and spiritual powers to save our species and our life support system. For now all we have is the Sustainable Development Goals that are the only comprehensive approach I’m aware of for meeting the needs of all while protecting and even restoring our planet’s vital bio film systems. We in the US are responsible for most of the earthly damage. And I invite you to take an important action to change that as well as reverse much of the destructive conditions that others in the world have little choice but to take. Please consider joining with others to document how global injustices are threatening our local communities (within each of the 435 US Congressional Districts). US foreign, trade, and military policies are driving much of the global destruction that is coming home to roost in the form of terrorism, infectious diseases, job losses, immigration pressures, weather extremes, PTSD victims, and other consequences of war. At the heart of most global problems is a global governance system that puts the protection of states rights/national sovereignty/borders/corporate profits– ahead of human rights and our environment. We aren’t going to change that any time soon …but we can focus on the creation of political will to bring most of the 7.5 billion people into alignment on creating heaven on earth instead of the hell we are now falling towards. The SDGs have that potential. So, you can either keep complaining about it, criticizing options that might make a difference…or come up with another plan. If you want a specific assignment for targeted action on your own Member of Congress…please let me know. chuck@igc.org 240-997-2209. US Global Justice Corp. Our 435 Campaign for Global Justice.

  • The indigenous First nations would have to be included with their sacred Earth Mother world view and revering traditions given equal voice to relatively recent science and religion, that have not even slowed down the rate of planetary destruction, degadation and deadly global pollution .

    • Arnold Byron

      I agree. Thank you. That’s a good catch. As I see the global situation at the present time is that any effort to begin solving the problems in a meaningful way is stuck in inertia. Somebody has to break the inertia. The only group that I can see who has all of the tools needed to break the inertia are colleges and universities. The question I haven’t got an answer to is how can we get the colleges and universities involved. Once the colleges and universities start working they will include all nations including the indigenous nations. My idea is to get all the nations on the same page by accepting non-binding treaties until a supermajority of nations agree. Then the nonbinding treaties can become binding and constitution can be written from the treaties. Once all of the nations are on the same page then healing can begin. I wish I knew how to get our universities engaged to start the process. You sound like you are serious. Do you have any ideas?

    • Robert Scott

      I agree Peter Carter. Indigenous people’s would need to oversee paradigm shift. .I spent some time on this very problem a few years ago. .part of a possible solution was published in nz mensa ,under diminished returns of reality Construct . I went multidimensional simple with a biofeedback modular construction system. That allows the construction of a 460m modular constructed techno organic airship that replaces petroleum and shipping while repairing environment. .

  • Meditor

    I discourage us from looking for solutions from the sources of our crisis; that is addict thinking.
    Technology and government will not save us, that is how we got here.
    I think it is not “humankind” you seek to save, but the global system, yes?
    As for universities being free from politics, that is the most naive of all, they are typically all about politics, right down to the department level.
    If you were successful, it would not play out as in your imagination. It would be exactly the dystopia that science fiction writers have been describing for nearly a hundred year, the dystopia of the complete state, which controls everything about our lives.

    Abandon your love of the global system, and of technology, and please stop trying to create a dystopia.
    If we really want to save the planet, we have to shut off the oil and let people die. That actually will save humankind.
    Are you willing to do that? Because, giving up an addiction like this is very, very hard.

    • Arnold Byron

      One doesn’t know if a plan will work if one doesn’t try to make the plan work. If we can make the right plan work we will be able to shut off the oil and save the people at the same time. Do you know university people where you live. Take this blog article to them and ask them to begin the effort to bring the nations together to solve the planetary problems.

      • Meditor

        I am sorry to be disparaging, I really am. There is too little time; the chances of agreement are nil.
        Still, good luck!

    • trilemmaman

      Technology geared toward mimicking nature and our highest ideals of ‘life,liberty and justice for all’…will be the only path for our species survival. Earth has an inevitable expiration date. If we fail to leave by then so be it. But we have the capacity to overcome our selfish thinking/actions and make some sacrifice for future generations. Letting people die is NOT the answer. That is the pathway to our extinction. Our adherence to fundamental principles The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God) instead of the alternative principles policy makers keep thinking up and voting on…thinking they are smarter than laws of nature and the spirit of life.

  • stevenearlsalmony

    For years we have been encouraged to “think globally.” Let us hope that it is not too late to begin “acting globally.” There is not time to waste because unbridled overproduction, overconsumption and overpopulation activities by the human species are on the verge of causing a global ecological wreckage of the relatively small, evidently finite and noticeably frangible planet we are blessed to inhabit. Among others, Peter Fiekowsky and Bill Dowling are aware of the need for concerted global action sooner rather than later.

    • Arnold Byron

      The framework I have outlined depends on action by , hopefully, all of the universities and colleges worldwide. The college boards of regents, the college presidents and the department heads are the college people who I want to become active. They need to see this idea of using academic resources to pull the nations of the world together to act as one unit. I would love if I could trust the United Nations to do this but, I’m sorry, I don’t.

      • stevenearlsalmony

        Dear Arnold Byron, If implemented, I believe your plan would lead us along a path we need to go. A viable pathway to the future must be discovered and taken. Thanks for all you are doing to promote future human well being and environmental health. Sincerely, Steve

        • Arnold Byron

          Thank you Steve. I just wrote in my comment to Mr. Carter that the reason why we need to turn to our universities to be the catalyst that brings the nations on board so that the work can begin is because the United Nations can only operate by holding huge unwieldy meetings. While at these meetings nations can nod their heads but don’t have to agree to anything as substantial as setting up a special office that will require their funding and support. The nations have to be sold this proposition in a different way. That is why I call on the law departments of the universities attenuated to the nations to be the sellers of the concept, The vehicle that i think will work is a nonbinding agreement that will not have to be adopted until a majority or super majority of the nations, including the indigenous nations, are on board. I am asking everyone to take this idea to academia everywhere.

  • martin

    I have already proposed this start a ethical moral sustainable site with main site, the each country as a site they allow their states they allow their regions they allow their communities.All people around the world understands what is going on, all catastrophic events facing humanity resolved, the biggest problem is how do people understand themselves, if they do not change then this planet will not change, I have resolved that problem MHAB claim this is of no use the most efficient way to start is create a web site and let it go viral by Uni students. PROBLEM SOLVED
    Have a nice day, if you or anyone has a better idea, you
    need to get it together real quick

  • Robert Scott

    It is obvious that the world governments do not have the required cognitive function to modulate civilization to a viable class 1.otherwise they would have started reformation in 1978. .
    3rd level conceptual preceptors are required. .sadly abomination equals present civilization.

  • Ross McCluney

    In support of Our Children’s Trust, and in particular, of Levi Draheim, a local one of the 21 young plaintiffs in their lawsuit against the U.S. government–seeking dramatic action to save the planet’s habitability for them and their children’s and grandchildren’s future, I urge this and other efforts to give nature legal standing and following through with major personal and government reforms. See https://www.ourchildrenstrust.org/ The whole thing started several years ago when Kelsey Juliana at age 15, filed a lawsuit against her state of Oregon. Things progressed, and the number of plaintiffs grew.

    In an interview with Bill Moyers, Juliana said, ‘You don’t have to call yourself an activist to act. I think that’s so important that people my age really get [that] into their heads. As a younger person, I have everything to gain from taking action and everything to lose from not. It’s important that youth are the ones who are standing up because of the fact that we do have so much to lose.’