[Closed] Do we really care shocking news/ wars etc

You can't change the whole world, so do what you can, educate kids by example, and hope that others will too. Distrust those in 'power'

One MP tweeted that he'd had 32 letters about the badger cull and 2 about Syria.

I think people see a 'big' problem and can't understand how they can influence it so they just behave passively. And that then involves emotionally detaching themselves from it.

Of course a million people hitting the streets against the Iraq war and being ignored didn;t help everyone think they were part of the process.

"Fret global, act local" ?

I for one can say yes certain things effect me but I cant possibly take everything I hear as my problem/or care about. This doesn't make me a thoughtless person just real and perhaps a little selfish at times...

Yep, me too. Think most people are. There's a lot of people in the world, a lot of evil sh*t going down and a lot of love and happiness too. It's the yin/yang of the world/universe we live in. Best just do waht you can to make it better in your own way. If we all followed that script we wouldn't have have the cr*p we do on the News.

We had one of the largest demonstrations ever seen in britain against the Iraq war and that massive show of public opinion and opposition to the governments urge to go to war achieved absolutely nothing. That sort of thing tends to disempower people. If that scale of protest does nothing then how are we supposed to influence the people making the decisions?

It used to be that we were insulated against much of what happened in the world by primitive contact with events, having little more than newspapers to keep us informed of things that happened "far away".

However, modern media shrinks distance and covers events comprehensively, making us increasingly aware of all the bad things that people are doing to each other all over the world (good things are not news). As the years pass and the world population increases, competing for resources and forcing various issues, the situation gets worse.

Without a drastic reduction in world population from a massive world war or natural disaster such as a comet strike or new plague, progress towards non-violence from (largely) the male population or some other massive or unlikely event, it will only get worse.

The question now is - what will the endgame look like?

Without a drastic reduction in world population from a massive world war or natural disaster such as a comet strike or new plague, progress towards non-violence from (largely) the male population or some other massive or unlikely event, it will only get worse.

The question now is - what will the endgame look like?

A drastic reduction in world population is not necessary, useful? Maybe, but not needed. There are plenty of resources (renewable ones) that can be used to allow people to live long and happy lives in relative comfort.

Non violence and population control are two goals that can be achieved relatively simply by empowering and educating women. All the resources already exist, everything is in place we just need to change our attitude (as a species) and start recognising and educating everyone to the same extenet.

muppetwrangler is bang on the money there. literally.
those who make billions of pounds of profit every time we go to war (arms dealers and bankers) have far too much influence over our government. its time the rulers became our servants/representatives again. viva la revolution i say
edit; i also heartily agree with peyote's post

Malthus was right. It's only a question of time. And pressure.

Malthus was right.

Was he? When? Trying to think of a Malthusian Catastrophe but struggling a bit...

So, I'll just do that again, shall I?

It's only a question of time. And pressure.

Sorry, I assumed "was" meant past tense. Maybe "Malthus will be right". 🙂

Anyway, Malthus has been critiqued enough in the past for ignoring other impacts on resource production and population level so I'll leave it at that for now.