[INFJ] Did anyone ever stumble across a complete plan to save the world?

A lot of the reasons as to why such plans don't work is because of incompetence and corruption never mind the ideologues that are divorced from reality from which we've gotten the horrors of Marx including Nazism that doomed countless millions to an early death. Look over to what has been going on for the past couple of days we got some of those same ideologues threatening another world war because they can't handle crazy Nancy visiting Taiwan.
 
uuu said:
I have never seen such a plan, and I don't think that anyone has, because if such a plan did exist, then it given that the vast majority of people stand to benefit from a plan to save the world, it would be self-evident to any reader that this plan is what we need to do right now, and the plan would already have gone viral and been implemented by now.

Yes, this rules out The Communist Manifesto. Marx had some profound ideas, but if he had struck on a perfect and complete plan to save the world, then you'd think in 170+ years it would have gained a bit of headway.

I propose a more interesting question: Is it possible for the object described in the OP to exist at all?

In my view, people can't even agree about basic facts about nature, so it seems unlikely that you are going to stumble upon a plan for saving the world that is both effective and realistic (not that "realistic" includes, at a minimum, that the plan has a way of mobilizing people behind the plan's implementation, e.g. by agreeing with it).
Click to expand...

Such an idea is only something an intellectual narcissist can come up with then doom millions either of his or her own countrymen/women to an early death or worse that of other nations only to dump the blame on someone else usually other demographics where there is already preexisting prejudice for causing the failure of said plans or ideology. This next time around it will be Christians taking the heat along with the Jews once more as well anyone who didn't go along or were not invested enough in said ideologies at least in the west much less any self preserving minority group getting cast aside as well like a used condom. The way these ideologues have tried to implement utopia have always meant death for whoever was painted for creating problems in society before hand, during, and after such as land owners or anyone who refused to work the collectivized farms etc.
 
I'm not sure what a saved world would actually look like to be honest. Things can only be stable if we become part of a set of interlocking ecological cycles that are indefinitely sustainable. At the moment, the only obvious way to obtain that is to get rid of people all together - which would save the world, but not for us.

But - It seems to me that the pace of knowledge and innovation that's going on could lead to technology that would get us there in ways unforeseeable at the moment. In my lifetime that sort of thing has happened (in electronics for example) and it's a very distinct possibility. I'm very optimistic that it's feasible in concept. I think it's very likely though that the right technologies won't emerge from good intentions but from necessity - that's because they will be expensive to develop and the transitions will bring hardship to billions of people. I think this is the great problem for any plan to put the world of people onto an indefinitely sustainable footing.

It it were down to me, I'd set up a massively funded program to really deliver nuclear fusion energy and this would be a major part of the bedrock of a sustainable future - necessary but not sufficient of course. It's clean, both chemically and radioactively, and the fuel is almost unlimited in the water of the oceans. Together with renewables (employed more sympathetically with nature than covering huge tracts with windmills or solar farms) that would give us cheap energy indefinitely. I can imagine as well that, with a lot of innovation, we could make intelligent machines that could scavenge the rubbish we throw out and recover and refine all the essential components of it that are currently lost to landfill or incinerator or the oceans. We are crazy not to be putting every ounce of international resource into these sorts of technologies as though our lives depended on it, which they may well do.

But that's the technology. On the other hand, I can't see our existing political systems being able to manage the sort of transition we might need. It could be like having to accept the sacrifices and risk to life that we make in all-out war, but sustained for several generations. It'll take a series of ecological catastrophes before people as a whole will accept the need for such a transition, assuming that we survive them. Even so, I'm optimistic we will come through it because humans are very ingenious, but I do wonder if it can be done without a significant reduction in our standard of life for an extended period of maybe 100 years..

I hope it doesn't become a new dark age like in medieval times - it's very possible it will cost the transition generations very dearly in standard of living, stress, health, comfort and lifespan. That's why it can only be driven by necessity. The transition years will be ones of a constant threat of civil unrest and war if we don't collectively accept and support the kind of governments it will take to see it through, for as long as it takes to get through it. I think if we go into it consciously, we may escape relatively lightly, but if we sleepwalk into it then it will be bitter and hard.
 
Sloe Djinn said:
O geez, a plan to turn the world into Minnesota.
Click to expand...

Hm or Connecticut (some kind of land of humanoid robots according to the new version of "The Stepford Wives" ;-)). Well I guess I did not explain that part well enough. The basic idea is that to stop them from killing themselves by ecological suicide you must most likely force some kind of artificial control system upon them to force them to be "good", for example in an environmental sense, because otherwise they will most likely insist on killing themselves. If you want to call that result "artificially good" is another question, especially the word "good" in combination with "artificial", lol.
 
Roses In The Vineyard said:
A lot of the reasons as to why such plans don't work is because of incompetence and corruption never mind the ideologues that are divorced from reality from which we've gotten the horrors of Marx including Nazism that doomed countless millions to an early death. Look over to what has been going on for the past couple of days we got some of those same ideologues threatening another world war because they can't handle crazy Nancy visiting Taiwan.
Click to expand...
Marx isn’t to blame for Nazism. Nazism is closer to current western neoliberalism. Most global conflicts are best understood as being caused by wealthy elites maintaining and/or strengthening their grip on money and power. Another reason is usually given, but it’s a lie. Don’t fall for the ideologies, the good versus bad etc arguments. All phoney. This is my personal insight which I think explains a hell of a lot. Since most wars are caused by elites, they should be thought of as primarily the fault of a minority (due to greed) rather than explained away as man’s general weakness/evil. I should write a book.
 
David Nelson said:
Marx isn’t to blame for Nazism. Nazism is closer to current western neoliberalism. Most global conflicts are best understood as being caused by wealthy elites maintaining and/or strengthening their grip on money and power. Another reason is usually given, but it’s a lie. Don’t fall for the ideologies, the good versus bad etc arguments. All phoney. This is my personal insight which I think explains a hell of a lot. Since most wars are caused by elites, they should be thought of as primarily the fault of a minority (due to greed) rather than explained away as man’s general weakness/evil. I should write a book.
Click to expand...

Lol you drink the cool aid as ever, Nazism is a derivative ideology of Marxism but anyway we all see that not only are you a Marxist but an intellectual narcissist to boot as you've had to announce to the forum of your intelligence on multiple occasions. Also one shouldn't base one's world view on Noam Chomsky who is well known for denying genocide so basically a pro soviet version of David Duke.
 
Roses In The Vineyard said:
Lol you drink the cool aid as ever, Nazism is a derivative ideology of Marxism but anyway we all see that not only are you a Marxist but an intellectual narcissist to boot as you've had to announce to the forum of your intelligence on multiple occasions. Also one shouldn't base one's world view on Noam Chomsky who is well known for denying genocide so basically a pro soviet version of David Duke.
Click to expand...
This idiotic post is not worthy of a proper response. Go read some books you fool. Or maybe you’ve already done that and failed lol
 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1781685614/?tag=infjs-21

Israel. The most puzzling country. The most highly militarised on earth, one of the wealthiest and the greatest persecutor of Palestinians with a 10 Palestinians killed to every I Israeli, and one where any criticism of the country’s policies is misinterpreted as anti-semitism. Oh, and they exploit the Holocaust for profit as in the above book. Has such a privileged country ever played the victim so much? Doubtful.
 
Last edited:
John K said:
Things can only be stable if we become part of a set of interlocking ecological cycles that are indefinitely sustainable.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need to work harder on nuclear power.

I wonder, though, if this way of framing the idea of "a plan to save the world" presupposes that the problem the world needs saving from is material in nature. Some of the big headline problems, like global warming, the pandemic, and food insecurity are clearly about the material security of humans. But others, like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the gender wars, and racial tension suggest that the real "wicked problems" we have are cultural.

Even if there were ample energy and resources to meet everyone's survival needs several times over, part of me wonders if it's just human nature to squabble over power, territory, and gender roles; if so, then equally as important as expanding nuclear power is to invest in our democratic and cultural institutions—schools, courts, elections, etc.—in a way that keeps tugging society toward fairness, tolerance freedom rather than their opposites. In other words:
David Nelson said:
Just put INFJs in charge lol
Click to expand...
Specifically, me.
 
uuu said:
I agree that we need to work harder on nuclear power.

I wonder, though, if this way of framing the idea of "a plan to save the world" presupposes that the problem the world needs saving from is material in nature. Some of the big headline problems, like global warming, the pandemic, and food insecurity are clearly about the material security of humans. But others, like Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the gender wars, and racial tension suggest that the real "wicked problems" we have are cultural.

Even if there were ample energy and resources to meet everyone's survival needs several times over, part of me wonders if it's just human nature to squabble over power, territory, and gender roles; if so, then equally as important as expanding nuclear power is to invest in our democratic and cultural institutions—schools, courts, elections, etc.—in a way that keeps tugging society toward fairness, tolerance freedom rather than their opposites. In other words:

Specifically, me.
Click to expand...
LOL yes ..... or maybe me instead ;)

I agree with you on the problem not being a matter of just material things. Some thoughts ...

The ideas I was exploring are really rooted in Maslow's pyramid of needs - the kind of problems we are facing are likely to push people to the lower levels. Typically that brings out both the very best and the very worst in people if it's sustained, and it will need the material things to be sorted because the bad behaviour will just break out generally when times are very hard - we can't even sort it when times are good, as you imply. Improving attitudes and behaviours would need to be worldwide as well, but much of the world seems to be going in the opposite direction at the moment.

Just as important is a complete change in the way we relate to nature - we need to respect it as much as we should respect each other, but that needs a complete spiritual revolution in our thinking. We maybe need to see ourselves as ruled by Gaia rather than the other way round. The trouble is that the last time we gave her the mastery, we were hunter gatherers. Maybe we can do the same again as civilised folks with the right attitudes and technology to support it.
 
@uuu
Or in other words, you are wondering how to make humans "artificially good":
"part of me wonders if it's just human nature to squabble over power, territory, and gender roles; if so, then equally as important as expanding nuclear power is to invest in our democratic and cultural institutions—schools, courts, elections, etc.—in a way that keeps tugging society toward fairness, tolerance freedom rather than their opposites."
Then, you decide, that the remedy is you.
Well, could be, but I think you overestimate how much power a ruler can wield over the unwieldy masses of humans.
You can tell these little innocent people to behave nicely as much as you want, each day, every day, for the rest of your life and use all means of propaganda at your disposal, good luck. Perhaps, in centuries, you might have some effect on them, assuming you could live that long.
But I guess they will most likely just make sure you immediately step down within the first year (lol) and be replaced by someone who fits their bill and likings.
Or in other words, someone as evil and morally bankrupt as the average person.
Thats why the german saying is very right IMHO which says that every people has EXACTLY the politicians and rulers it deserves.

Here a citation that is supposed to come from the the "Club of Rome":
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." – Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

I can agree with that assessment for the most part, except for "global warming" (according to the real science we can expect a massive wordwide cooling because of the Grand Solar Minimum and other natural phenomena, furthermore there is most likely no MANMADE climate change, there is climate change of course, as always in history, just not manmade). It is a broad statement which refers to the mass of humanity, aka the masses of average people as only they "matter" regarding the state of the planet. In this regard, it is correct. If you wanted to be more exact you would have to write that not "humanity itself" is the enemy, but the "bad people" of humanity. Which is still almost all of humanity in this regard, as this refers mainly to environmental destruction / resource consumption and you would have to have a very disciplined and (environmentally) "very good" citizenship to be able to sustain the current numbers of global population without destroying the environment.

Well, you can turn it and turn and turn it, but I think if you think it through, you will always arrive at the same conclusions and "in the tracks" of the Great Reset Makers. I fear thats inevitable. It is just plain logic, given the circumstances. Either mankind miraculously converts to some angel like state or you have to force them to become "artificially good", and/or you have to massively reduce their numbers. The alternative is end of life on this planet as we know it (resource wars etc.), IF their predictions are correct.

So, I guess all one could do in the current situation is try to write a "more humane" plan than the one most obviously currently running. It must be realistic though or you dont even need to start.
 
Last edited:
puzzledheart said:
I can agree with that assessment for the most part, except for "global warming" (according to the real science we can expect a massive wordwide cooling because of the Grand Solar Minimum and other natural phenomena, furthermore there is most likely no MANMADE climate change, there is climate change of course, as always in history, just not manmade).
Click to expand...
Oh I think the geological evidence definitely shows a causal correlation between CO2 levels and planetary heat retention. And there's reasonable evidence to demonstrate that a lot of the increase in CO2 percentage in our atmosphere since the early 1800s is down to people, so there's going to be an effect. What that effect will be depends on which of the models is accurate but I guess it's one great big experiment. I wouldn't be surprised either way - bigger or smaller effect than in popular belief. But you are dead right - the climate isn't stable for natural reasons and we are in the middle of a major ice age at the moment. You only have to look at the wild temperature fluctuations at the end of the last glacial phase to see just how unstable our climate can be. If all other things were equal, we'd actually be at the end of one of the longer inter-glacial periods, which only last 10-15 thousand years before things gradually cool off for tens of thousands of years. Maybe people are nature's way of stopping the ice from returning - each successive glaciation spell has been getting worse over the last million years.

But my hunch is that a human generated ecological crisis could easily come from an unexpected source - such as all the crap we dump in the sea killing off the creatures that sit at the bottom of the marine food-chain. If they stop replacing the oxygen in the atmosphere that would be fun eventually.
 
Stop fracking, taking gases, and taking oils from the earth. First obstacle. Core of the earth is like molten lava.

Stop recycling when water is needed. Place restrictions on corporate over

usage of water.

"See thou hurt not the oil and the wine."
 
Last edited:
@John K
I agree that the rise in CO2 levels is most likely manmade and I agree that we do not know how big the effect is going to be and if it "adds up" over time...I think that the effect is going to be near zero. Thats why I wrote "no manmade" climate change, technically this is probably incorrect as there is probably a very, very, very small effect, lol, but I let that fall under the carpet. I think that there is a simple indicator how serious global warming and rising sea levels are going to be, simply check out where most of the villas of rich people are. As far as I heard they are usually right next to the sea, usually not even elevated, aka almost at sea level. "Money talks and bullsh*t walks". If they expected rapidly rising sea levels, these people would all sell, now, to still get a good price for their soon to be "underwater villa". Either this or they dont expect much effect at all, or at least not in the short run. So, if a global cooloff is coming, which is most likely the case IMHO, CO2 probably wont save us, as it wont do sh*t, probably even if we create as much as possible, lol. But at least CO2 is very good for plant life, I heard somewhere a longer time ago that Einstein and others recommended to make CO2 factories, to end world hunger or something. Well, I think he was a good guy, I dont know much about him, but when I hear him talk, I get the impression he was a good guy. NASA recently confirmed a worlwide increase in plant growth, obviously caused by the rising CO2 levels.
Yes, marine pollution is a real threat to all life on this planet, as soon as the small life forms like plankton die, mankind is finished, just as you mentioned, but of course you dont hear a word about this anywhere. Why the average person never hears about this from our beloved mass media is easy to explain, the average person cannot relate to this as it does not relate to their everyday lives. But weather, oh, weather ("climate" in effect) is something they understand, thats something they even talk about often ;-), so this is the ideal tool to create fear in the average person and create at least SOME change. Well, in fact, a lot of "change", as dealing with CO2 emission certificates is a multi billion dollar business by now. This does not mean I am all against measures "to protect the climate" as a lot of the stuff they planned is, as far as I can see, really going to protect the environment (for example completely stopping worldwide deforestation and even turning it around) etc.. So I am for environmental protection. The global warming theory just seems to be a front to justify all the stuff that they planned to the average person. Enuff(z).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top