The Only Solution to Humanity's Crisis : To the United Natio

The earth isn’t suffering from overpopulation and leaving all these issues up to a single governmental entity to solve is dangerous and just flat out lazy.

We are not waiting. If there is a possibility, we try it. Anyhow, you know more about us now. Even it is a game, we play it well.

Most of the issues you listed are caused by greedy rich people and collaborating governments.

Overpopulation, I would say, isn't an issue. Certain areas being over-crowded, though, is an issue. There is a lot of uninhabited land in the world; 43% of earth's land surface covered by humans and 40% of that is agricultural. Overpopulation isn't the sole cause for a decline in animal population, it is the second issue you listed that is the cause; human greed and lust.

Humanity's greed and lust is the number one issue, as it is what motivates people to destroy the environment, waste resources, destabilize ecological environments, cause wars and famines that create refugee problems, and create conflicts between nations, religions, and cultures.

You said, "First of all, we should break up traditional marriages and families because they are the sources of human selfishness, the birthplaces of human crises, and the headstreams of all crime and evil. They are also the curb chains which prevent us all from leading happy, joyous, free, and blessed lives, but rather make people feel anxious, miserable, and fearful."
Can you back this up with any facts? How are marriages and families the source of human selfishness, crisis, and crime? How do they prevent us from leading happy, joyous, free, and blessed lives? Why and how do families and marriages make people feel anxious, miserable, and fearful?

You said, "Our mode of production should change from a pattern of possessing to one of sharing; from one of competing predatorily to one of serving each other enthusiastically."
Don't families and marriages consist of people sharing? Don't families and marriages consist of people serving each other?

You said, "We have been experimenting with and improving upon this mode in mainland China for nine years, and the results have been very encouraging. More than two hundred people have participated in our experiment over the past ten years and one hundred and fifty of them have resided within the New Oasis for Life for extended periods of time. The remarkable signs of this mode are that exclusive marriages and families have disappeared, supporting our elderly and rearing and educating our children have been managed well, the crime rate has dropped to zero, our members’ health has improved greatly, pollution to our local environment has dropped to near zero, and our waste of resources and carbon footprint have been reduced greatly. Our people's happiness indices have risen higher than those in any of the developed countries in the world."
Okay, so you have this experiment going on that started with more than 200 people, but now only 150 are there. How does this justify forcing this way of living onto the rest of the world? What do you do about the 50+ people that did not want to stay in your experimental commune? Don't you think you should try to get more people to volunteer that way your experiment can have more legitimacy when dealing with more people before you can say this way of living will work for the whole world?

I have a question: if you think the world is overpopulated, what do you plan to do to fix that issue?

Changing what traditional life modes? The modern progressive movement has been a projection away from these traditional values.

1.  You claim overpopulation is an issue, however this has been a result of the technocratic industrial base which has caused an imbalance within resource consumption that effectively caused the population expansion to begin with.

The cycle through which resources have been processed  historically through human labor changed at a rate that effectively Nullifies Any Balance Between Manual Labor And Physical Need Where People Physically Work Less But Consume Either An Equal Or Larger Amount Of Resources Than What Is Necessary While Effectively Being Eliminated From The Work Market Due To Technological Progress.

This is assuming there is even an overpopulation to begin with as some studies implied the whole world population of seven billion can be cramped into a metropolis the size ofTexas.  Add thfact not only do people consume more than they need, but the majority of industrialization requires further resources just to keep the industry, and tools which form it, moving regardless of material output.  We create tools to create further tools.

2.  Blaming the human condition for the human condition and then arguing the humanity will solve the problems effectively leaves the proposed solution subject to the issues of human nature to begin with, where greed and lust will determine the framework of interpretation.

The current framework for industrialization is premised on greed and lust.  The social media movement in technology originates in a lust for seeing new things.

We cannot, as global civilization, live without technology due to not just its ingraining in our lives at the personal and practical level but because of the inherent lifestyle has left a genetic footprint in our bloodlines which will pop up sooner or later as a zeitgeist that will haunt the memories of future generations where they will feel out of place because of the memories imprinted in them from further generations.

3.  See points 1 and 2.  The corresponding cycles of natural law are ingrained as a sort of logical system within the psyches of prior generations.  The cyclical nature of the seasons, animal movements, weather, celestial cycles, etc. provided a framework of reasoning through which people observed not just reality but themselves as well.

This reasoning premised in a natural law, which can be reflected on certain philosophical movements such as Taoism and Christianity, founded upon a synthetic nature to reality is grounded in an inherent reproductive nature to reality where life joined to life beget more life.  In simpler terms sex is a foundation to logic, as well as circularity, through natural law.  

However in light of a strict progressively linear logic these natural functions have been distorted at the universal level where the creative aspect of nature inherent, through a form of cycling in not just the gene pool but embodied under the cyclical nature of the golden rule itself at the personal level, within man as a universal measure has been distorted to a form of self pleasuring. 

This ingrained hedonism, a false and irrational hedonism in light of the deeper pleasures of virtue, has caused a changed in the foundational values of man making him/her a means rather than a beginning or end.  This hedonism is further magnified under social media where the natural law of creation is inverted to one of Creating An Illusive Identity Founded On Consumption. 

This Creation Of An Illusive Self Is Founded In The Progressive Linear Logic That Gave Foundation To The Industrial Revolution And Modern Culture And Is Inherent At The Ideological And Intuitive Level Where People Cease To Self Reflect; Hence Are Unable To Bear Not Just Responsibility For Personal Decisions But Inherently Project There Personal States On To Others without being aware. 

This in turn reflects at the macro level where the continual projection of the self away from the self inhibits any form of stable psychological roots but causes inherent clashing of values in a war of all against all that is the defining attribute of modern culture.  

People Are Formed According To There Ability To Reason. But between The Inability To Critically Think Due To Modern Noise, As Well As Poor Logical Foundations The Modern Person Is Unable To Make Any Critical Change.

4.  See points 1, 2, 3.  The Rewriting Of Natural Law, Through The Articificial Sphere Of Technology, Is A War Againstnot Just Nature But The Human Condition As Well.

Will extend later, I am just to bored continue.

And somehow I doubt Mr. Padova reads the arktos forum.

No, Mr. Padova doesn't read the arktos forum. One of us sent email to him.
I am sharing here for you to read, for those who are resonant. I am not trying to persuade anyone but to find those who are resonant with Lifechanyuan values. They are born, not learned to be Chanyuan celestials. They like what i shared and feel this is what they have been looking for. 

Read below article, see if you agree? 
Everything we enjoy today, except the gift of nature, depends entirely on the invention and creation of human beings and the progress of science and technology. If we abandon the existing scientific and technological achievements and go back to the ancients, it will not be the progress of civilization, but the retrogression of civilization.

39. Science and Civilization


Religion goes hand in hand with fatuity, while science keeps abreast with civilization.



Science is the activity and knowledge to understand, explore, and interpret the laws of nature, human society, and thinking.



Civilization is a voluntary behavior of man formed on the basis of the correct understanding of material world and nonmaterial world.



Without the development and progress of science, civilization is only an extravagant hope.



The symbol for real civilization is: no slightest conflict between man and man, man and society, and man and nature, and the sustained harmony without the regulations of laws and without the mechanisms of supervision.



For example, how do we dispose of the banana peel after eating a banana on the bus? The uncivilized behavior is to throw it out of the window. We only keep a clean place for ourselves and do not care about the inconvenience to others caused by the banana peel thrown out of the window. The less uncivilized behavior is to place the banana peel under the seat and leave the bus. The civilized behavior is to take the banana peel away and throw it into the dustbin.



For another example, suppose an automatic newsagent stand is set up by a road with a large flow of pedestrians, each newspaper sells for one dollar, and beside the pile of newspaper is placed a money box, from which buyers can get the changes of his money. In this situation, the civilized person would willingly place the money into the money box and take away the changesand then fetch a newspaper from the top of the pile of newspaper. The less uncivilized person would also place the money into the box, but would fumble through the box for the cleaner and tidier changes and would not take the newspaper directly from the top of the pile but takes one from the middle of the pile. The uncivilized person would trickly pick newspaper from the pile when seeing no one around and would take one or even two newspaper without paying money, thinking “It does not make any difference whether I take one for free or not”. He would not consider other consequences. He would not pay attention to the losses sustained to the owner of the newspaper. For those who do not pay for the newspaper and worse still pick money from the box, this is not a matter of being civilized or not, but a matter of crime.



Some may say that civilization does not have much to do with science. In the remote villages with rustic folkway, The doors were not shut at night and no one picked other's loss on the street., and doesn’t this count for civilization?



This question involves the understanding of science. It is generally believed that space shuttles, ion accelerators, computer networks, magnetic suspension trains, atomic energy power plants, cloning of life, nanotechnology, and atomic bombs are science but farmer’s planting of crops, housewife’s cooking, worker’s operation, and smallbusiness all have nothing to do with science.



Many people are biased against science, believing that science is at the same time benefiting mankind and threatening the survival of civilization. For example, as a result of the development of science, people can no longer have any impression of the good old days—in which the doors were not shut at night and no one picked other's loss on the street.. Some people even believe that science should be held responsible for the creation of killing machines like firearms, bombers, and atomic bombs and that science has caused the bustling of mankind and accelerated the pace of life. There are even people who claim that the exhausted resources, the polluted earth, the damaged environment, and people’s spiritual and mental stress are all evils committed by science.



Science has been treated unjustly.



Science is the activity and knowledge for understanding, exploring, and interpreting the laws of nature, human society, and thinking. How can we impute science simply because of some people’s crooked application of science to other purposes?



Science has caused the emergence of automobiles. Can we blame science if a driverhas run into someone?



Internet has burst into the modern stage with the development of science. Can we say that science is promoting drugs and pornographic picture albums if someone takes advantage of the network to promote drugs and porn picture albums?



With the development of science and the appearance of Television, VCD, DVD, CD, films, telephones, and floods of books and magazines. Some people are utilizing these facilities to conduct vulgar propaganda, which causes people’s tension in sense of time, apathy in human relations, and contortion in psychology and mentality. Can we blame science for all these bad effects?



Science has caused the invention of atomic bombs, but can we say that science is intimidating people if someone threatens others with an atomic bomb?



If it is tenable to ascribe all misbehaviors and evils of modern society to science, then the following logical reasoning should be completely correct.



The reason why Xiao Wang committed murder is because his parents have given birth to him. If his parents have not given birth to him, there would not have been the problem of Xiao Wang’s murder. Then not Xiao Wang but his parents should be blamed for the crime. However, Xiao Wang’s parents were born by their respective parents, so Xiao Wang’s parents’ parents should be responsible for Xiao Wang’s crime. If this reasoning goes further back, the primogenitor of mankind will have to be held responsible. Where did man’s primogenitor come from? Then the earth cannot be exempt from the liability, because without the earth there would have been no primogenitor of mankind. The problem, however, does not end here. Without the solar system, there would have been no earth; and without the Milky Way galaxy, there would have been no solar system. And finally the crime may be traced back to the Greatest Creator who has created the universe.



The result of the logical reasoning is that the Greatest Creator is responsible for Xiao Wang’s action of murder.



This discursion is ridiculous.



If this rationalization is not absurd, then there would be only one solution: destroy mankind, destroy the universe.



Who else wants to shift the blame onto science?



There is a fallacy, “Science is a double-edged sword”, which undoubtedly implies that “The sun is a double-edged ball”, “The orange is a double-edged fruit”, “The plane is a double-edged aircraft”, and “TV is a double-edged set”. Everything is double-edged anywhere and any time. The result is one’s own parents are double-edged persons.



If we compare science to a knife, it totally depends on the user of the knife and has nothing to do with the knife itself whether the knife is used to chop vegetables, to mow grass, to slaughter pigs, or to kill people.



When it comes to science, we have to talk about scientists. Now there are more and more scientists, which are a good thing and an inevitable result of social development. But the problem is, “Who can be called scientists?”



Who are scientists?



Scientists are people who have discovered and can clearly describe or explain a certain law in the field of nature, society, and thinking, which is universally valid within a given limit of time and space.



Newton is a scientist because he has discovered gravitation; Einstein is a scientist because he has discovered the mass energy equation; Madame Curie is a scientist because she has discovered radioelements; Planck is a scientist because he has discovered quantum theory; Laplace is a scientist because he has discovered the uncertainty principle.



Those who work in science laboratories or with scientists can only be called scientific workers and cannot be called scientists.



People capable of explaining certain phenomena cannot be called scientists. Otherwise, I would also be a scientist.



People working in certain academy of sciences can not be called scientists.



People only capable of making innovations and inventions according to others’ theories can not be called scientists and can only be called inventors, engineers, and technicians. Edison is not a scientist.



People only capable of expounding others’ theories are not scientists, either. Many university teachers can explain the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to students, but they are not scientists, instead they are teachers and professors.



A person can only be regarded as one with great power of understanding but cannot be considered a scientist if he has discovered certain law but cannot explain it in clear words.



Therefore those who developed atomic bombs according to Einstein’s theories cannot be called scientist. They can at best be regarded as scientific workers or engineers.



Scientist is a sacred title. We should not abuse this title by using it randomly; otherwise science and scientists will be tarnished.



A person is a scientist if he has discovered and explained a certain theory. That he may later do something detrimental to society with his discovery is a matter of his moral character and social standpoint and has nothing to do with the title of scientist. In the same way, a man has created wealth for himself and the society by making a knife. We cannot say that it is wrong to create wealth just because he later becomes a criminal by killing people with this knife.



After we have discovered what science and scientists are, we will understand that science is the catalyst for civilization.



Without the guidance of science, man would be like a mob of animals, irrational, irredeemable, and hopeless.



Science and scientist are offspring of the Greatest Creator. The Greatest Creator has not created religion, but he has created science and scientist. A real scientist cannot deny the existence of the Greatest Creator, because all that are created by the Greatest Creator are not a result of random actions but are based on science, laws, and principles. The road of science is the road of the Greatest Creator. Who are nearest to the Greatest Creator? Scientists!



Human society is marching toward civilization. Today’s society is more civilized than the past. Modern times are more civilized than past times. Whoever is hostile to science, to present time and is afraid of the future can get undressed, destroy all you haveand go back to the virgin forest to see how you can survive.

"If all people in the community like sharing all their wealth with you, are you willing to do the same as they do ?"
I do not believe this would ever happen, though I do think it would happen within a family.

"Not we think, it is inevitable when more and more human awake. The newly emerging forces are bound to defeat what is corrupt and degenerate. Like the polygamy in history."
Why do you think people will think family is a virus? Why do you think families lead to corruption?

"more and more evidence show people don't want to get married. France is good example."
But how does this fact support the notion that the family is the "congenital virus" if society is unsatisfactory? If anything it just shows that people don't want to dedicate themselves to others shrug

"give me an example that a man loves olny his wife and never moved by other woman, and his wife is the same."
Have you never seen loyal or happy marriages? They do exist, I've seen them myself. I'm thinking your perception is limited to where you live and what you've seen there.

"You mean all human are perfect or imperfect people should not get married? Why people get married and divoced, are they all eccentric, defective? You can see one's soul? Everyone think they are good. We always saw news women were abused, who abused them, strangers?"
Neither. I'm not talking about perfections or imperfections. What I am saying is that over time you get to know someone better, you start to see who they are, and based on that one should know if that person is right for them or not.

"You mean there is no malfeasants on the earth? There is no such thing as corruption in the world?"
I didn't say that. I am saying it doesn't happen in the way you are describing via families. It used to be that way long ago.

"if you think bisexual love conduct freely out of willingness now, there shouldn't be stealthy love afair, cheating."
If people don't want to be loyal to their spouse, then they shouldn't be married shrug
It seems you are advocating to get rid of marriage so people can have open relationships. Well, to many people this is disgusting and wrong. Do you think it is okay to have a global government force people to not be married when they want to be? Do you think it is okay to have a global government teach people they ways you are advocating? Don't you think it is better to let people decide on their own what is good for them rather than have a government tell them what is good for them?

"We cannot assure the UN nations' behavior. We just want to set a branch but not governed by the UN, poeple who live their must be resonant with Lifechanyuan values."
Right, you cannot know what the UN will do. Why did you send a letter to the UN? What was the purpose of the letter?

"if you want to know us, please read more. It is not the same communism. Truth cannot be found in debates and arguments."
I understand it isn't the same communism, but the idea was the same and it always turns into a ruthless dictatorship. What you advocate is a utopia, but utopias are impossible because you can never ever get everyone to agree.

"Did i force you? Will you be forced by this article? This is just a suggestion, if people like this idea, they come. The government won't accept it so soon, as you see, so far no government accept it. So don't worry, you can live your life as before, you are free."
No, and I didn't say you did force me, nor will this article force me. I understand that it is a suggestion, but what you're suggesting takes away freedom from others and at the same time you are advocating for freedom. It is contradictory.

"When one is young, one thinks one should get married, because most people do like this. They thought this is right, this is the only choice. But when they are mature enough and find the truth, they might get divorced. This is what happened.

People do not get rid of bicycles because bicycles won't blame her, threaten her or beat her. Yes, nowadays, people do stop pregnancy by taking many kinds of contraception measures to avoid abortions. This is the progress of human civilization."
Not all believe they should get married. I did not want to get married for a long time, but in recent years my mind changed. I knew what my choices were as there were only two; get married or don't get married. Everyone has the same choices I did. You seem to be generalizing that all people mature and find out that they don't want to be married and want to get divorced, why? Is this your train of thought? If so, why do you think everyone thinks like you? 
I don't think you understood my analogies. I am saying that it seems that one of the reasons you want to get rid of marriage is because divorces are happening, so your logic seems to be that getting rid of marriage will stop divorces from happening(if am I wrong, correct me). But this way of thinking isn't efficient. It is the same as someone having a leak in their plumbing of their house and instead of fixing the leak, they just remove all the plumbing from their house. I used other examples, like car accidents; the logic you are using is the same saying car accidents are bad so we should get rid of all cars so no car accidents can happen. Plumbing provides your house with sanitation and potable water, cars provide us with transportation and commerce.
In marriages and families people provide for one another’s physical, emotional, and social well-being. Parents care for and socialize children, a function that prepares new members of society for their future roles.

So where is the scientific study to prove all of this? Of what value is science if we have to reach outside of it to determine the truth?