Talk:Developing A Universal Religion/Why Bother?/Why Develop A Universal Purpose?

=Criticisms= You state:
 * it no longer naturally overflows with abundant resources,

I think that this is a questionable statement. and:
 * and a population of six billion can only be sustained using the products of modern technology.

This is simply untrue. The bulk of the world's six billion ihabitants is sustained without modern technology. Only the less than a billion who inhabit North America and Europe are so dependent and even that is arguable. Please don't take it that I disagree with the general point that I think you are making, that we live on a planet that is under increasing population pressure and that the eco-system is becoming more and more fragile. However facile statements that cannot be backed up by hard facts simply play into the hands of the very extremists you hope to discourage. Take a look at BP's world report on enrgy production and consumption, use the applet to chart all the world's primary energy equivalent consumption and the uncheck North America and Europe so that you can see how small a proportion the rest of the world uses. --kwhitefoot 20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello Kwhitefoot. I've looked for the references that I used but can't find them. (I'll blame moving and discarding, but maybe they will turn up sometime.)

I wrote this: “The world is not what it used to be—it no longer naturally overflows with abundant resources, and a population of six billion can only be sustained using the products of modern technology”

But, IMHO, this statement is true, regardless of what BP’s research finds.

1. Surely we have greatly reduced—not eliminated, but on the way—much of the world’s oil and coal stores, fish and numerous animal/insect species, rain-forests, and endangered much else with our pollutants, perhaps making some dangerous to consume.

2. And how many of the 6 billion could live if everyone sought what might be produced without fertilisers, machinery to grow and transport food, etc?

3. And would everyone live as the very poor do in China, Africa, India? Wouldn't the world's average lifestyle be reduced to that?

I not only think that modern technology sustains us, I think that it adds greatly to our mental outlook. It certainly gives me more opportunities to find a “better life.” It means that I can live in a healthy environment, enjoy modern media, travel, and even think that the world might oneday become a “better place” for everyone. Wouldn’t you agree?

However, maybe the world could sustain 6 billion people without modern technology. (But, if everyone had the same standard of living, I would hate to live in such a place! How about you, would you like to live in such a place?)

David Hockey 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello Kwhitefoot.
 * I haven't been able to find the original references, but Global Footprints was part of it. Here is their site: http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/
 * And here are some quotes:
 * “Accepting 12 percent as the magic number for biodiversity preservation, one can calculate that from the approximately 2 hectares per capita of biologically productive area that exists on our planet, only 1.7 hectares per capita are available for human use.” http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/benchmark.htm
 * and, “Footprints are too large. Most countries presented in this report live on footprints larger than what their own ecosystems can support. On a global basis and even by conservative measures, humanity’s footprint has overshot global capacities by over 35 percent.”
 * “Population versus consumption. The numbers show the impact of both consumption and population. Clearly, the high levels of consumption in industrialized countries take the biggest share of the planet’s bounty. But with ever larger populations it becomes progressively less likely that a reasonable quality of life can be secured for everybody. Particularly the rapidly growing populations will lose their prospects even faster.” from http://www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/numbers.htm


 * It is more than energy use I was referring to. I know that this site is only one of many differing points of view. That’s one of the discussion points this book might raise, I guess. (But not one I anticipated!) David Hockey 14:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Linking Endnotes
When I started to read this module I found it annoying that I couldn't easily navigate to the end notes so as an example I have linked them to the endnote page. You can see what I did by looking at the history and comparing the versions. I think that the book needs to be 'wikified' if it is to be pleasant to read online. It would be easier to read if each page had links to the next and previous pages as well as to the contents page. Look at [Programming:Visual Basic Classic/Case Studies] or [Programming:Python Functions] for example. --kwhitefoot 21:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I am starting to do this--see Part One. I never seem to have enought time!!! David Hockey 19:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh! Now I see what you have done and I like that method. I'll make changes. David

Why make universal if you have diversity
If the richness of today is diversity why make one universal religion? One might even argue that there is no universial way of life just alot point of vieuw's.

Also, making a universal religion implies that you will turn all religious texts into one book. If thats true, than that soundslike a collosal (impossible) work to me.

Maybe these 2 elements should be added to this chapter.


 * But I think that I have done this. The last two paragraphs of this section state:

"Humanity needs, I think, a collective purpose. This would be in addition to our many individual and religious purposes. Under such a unified objective, individual moral behaviour not harmful to the collective good would properly remain individual choice, accruing concomitant rewards as believed to come before or after that individual’s death. However, the world’s collective guidance is a different matter. It should be obtained from a purpose positioned far beyond any one individual’s reach. This purpose should shine as a beacon to nations, guiding many generations. And its rewards should accrue to the living, not the dead, enriching the lives of all.

"While no one should be expected to abandon their inherited or chosen religion, none should be prevented from adopting an additional universal purpose to guide their moral behaviour. No one should be asked to change what they have come to believe about themselves and their ultimate individual destiny, or to deny the god they worship. But an overarching universal purpose, used to guide humanity’s collective behaviour should also exist—something that clearly helps ensure our species’ and life’s well-being and continuance."

And I have tried to present a rationale for doing this in several earlier sections. David Hockey 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)