3 ms·

I don’t get it. It’s a feel good book? Something more interesting would be learn how to more quickly improve the world. The world of 2100 could arrive in 205

I don’t get it. It’s a feel good book? Something more interesting would be learn how to more quickly improve the world. The world of 2100 could arrive in 2050, for example. Gates has around $100 billion to improve the world. How to most effectively leverage his money, for example? Build a better pharmaceutical company and cure some of the diseases on his list? Help to create better economies in Africa? [UPDATE] This comment got downvoted fast. I guess I’ll be happy with the improvements and learn to live with the current rate of progress. Any other feel good comments from the book that I could use at a party? [UPDATE] Don’t want to waste fu karma today. So, answer is half the world’s population lives in cities. Perhaps we could increase by making them more liveable. I’m all for reducing the human footprint on the world. Wildlife crossings, fewer roads and cars, less plastic, etc. How about a billion people move one planet over? A lot depends on increasing knowledge and reducing costs. Let’s increase the rate of innovation!

coding123 9y ago
Absolutely - even if everyone read this and suddenly feels complacent about our progress - what's next? Everyone is scared to talk about population growth - I mean at what point do we decide that we don't want to erase all unpopulated land simple because its there and fill it with humans. What about populations of wild animals - don't they get to share the earth with us? I feel like the movies about aliens coming and killing all humans is exactly how we treat animals on this planet. Just because they don't use verbal communication doesn't mean they should be slaughtered for our food. Why does progress always have to be pro-human?
- Santosh83 9y ago
  I have yet to meet anyone who gave a good answer to this question. It is obvious that we (as a species) behave like this because we can get away with it. Plain & simple. Whether it is a good long-term strategy is unclear to our brains that refuse to look at far-off effects. Time will tell. Besides moral relativism helps us to justify much of our destructive behaviour and inability to accept hard changes that might be necessary to make the world better for all living things.
rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Holy downvotes, Batman. My two cents on population: cars are a cancer on modernity. For a hundred years we have structured cities and societies around the automobile. As a result we as a species are largely bound to an expensive machine and a design of society that cannot function without that expensive machine. Many cities (especially in America, which is an enormous country with lots of space) are so sprawled out and gutted from public transit (thanks GM!) that transportation is impossible without the automobile. It’s even worse when you factor in the fact that a lot of freight is also required to be moved by automobile. Sprawl increases costs of transportation and infrastructure (roads, water, gas, electric, sewage) by an enormous degree. This in turn raises the cost of everything else to everybody. Even a perfect Jason Statham self-driving car would serve as a band-aid over a diseased organ. The very difficult question we must ask if we expect to maintain our standard of living with a growing population and a planet rotting from overconsumption is how do we redesign ALL cities to operate at the lowest possible cost per person. Otherwise we continue to pass along the cost to the planet and the next generations...assuming there will be any...

coding123 9y ago

Absolutely - even if everyone read this and suddenly feels complacent about our progress - what's next? Everyone is scared to talk about population growth - I mean at what point do we decide that we don't want to erase all unpopulated land simple because its there and fill it with humans. What about populations of wild animals - don't they get to share the earth with us? I feel like the movies about aliens coming and killing all humans is exactly how we treat animals on this planet. Just because they don't use verbal communication doesn't mean they should be slaughtered for our food. Why does progress always have to be pro-human?

Santosh83 9y ago
I have yet to meet anyone who gave a good answer to this question. It is obvious that we (as a species) behave like this because we can get away with it. Plain & simple. Whether it is a good long-term strategy is unclear to our brains that refuse to look at far-off effects. Time will tell. Besides moral relativism helps us to justify much of our destructive behaviour and inability to accept hard changes that might be necessary to make the world better for all living things.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

Holy downvotes, Batman. My two cents on population: cars are a cancer on modernity. For a hundred years we have structured cities and societies around the automobile. As a result we as a species are largely bound to an expensive machine and a design of society that cannot function without that expensive machine. Many cities (especially in America, which is an enormous country with lots of space) are so sprawled out and gutted from public transit (thanks GM!) that transportation is impossible without the automobile. It’s even worse when you factor in the fact that a lot of freight is also required to be moved by automobile. Sprawl increases costs of transportation and infrastructure (roads, water, gas, electric, sewage) by an enormous degree. This in turn raises the cost of everything else to everybody. Even a perfect Jason Statham self-driving car would serve as a band-aid over a diseased organ. The very difficult question we must ask if we expect to maintain our standard of living with a growing population and a planet rotting from overconsumption is how do we redesign ALL cities to operate at the lowest possible cost per person. Otherwise we continue to pass along the cost to the planet and the next generations...assuming there will be any...