It's such a simple, yet so difficult thing. It practically can't be done.

If we all actually worked together and actually cared about each other, realized all the problems and everything we're doing the make the world a worse place.

If we stopped thinking about just money and nothing else. We could fix global warming. Switching to renewable energy isn't the ridiculously complicated process everyone makes it seem like it is. Sure it's not the easier thing, but the real reason they don't just do it is because you can't make as much money off of it. You can't just turn off the sun when someone doesn't pay their bill. Money, money, money.

If we stopped caring about just ourselves and thought about other people more. If everyone donated more food and clothes, homelessness could cease. Starving people in third world countries; did you know that just 1/3 of all the food we waste annually in America could feed all the starving people in the world and then some?

If we stopped trying to just kill each other, war could end. There's no reason we should be killing each other for things like oil. Think about all the lives. Every individual has a life. A family. Maybe even children. Think about how we aren't only destroying the lives of those that we kill, but everyone they know. If you've ever lost a family member, think of that happening to thousands of people.

If we stopped living off of stereotypes or hating on minorities. Honestly, racism is a thing to be left in the past. Think about it, what is actually so triggering to some people about someone having literally no difference to you than just looking a little different. It's ridiculous. Why do homophobics exist? What does a LGBTQ+ doing to interfere with your life. You might not even know the person, you might have just seen a video or a news article. Those people need to live with hate from others just because they're being themselves. Why? If everyone was the same, nothing would happen. Everything would be plain and boring. There's different types of people for a reason, and you shouldn't just dislike a certain person because of who they are. It's just not right.

Why can't we do any of those things? Why can't people just stop thinking about themselves or money, and actually try and make a change? I can't answer that question because I'm not any of those people. Will those people ever change? Maybe, but it might already be too late, too much damage already done to society, to reverse what we've done and make a change.

Obviously I'm not the most educated person in the world, I'm just a 14 year old kid staying up too late writing about the worlds problems, but think about it. What stops us? It seems like none of those people I talked about even want to try and make change. But why? We can only assume, because we aren't those people.

It's so much easier than it seems to fix everything, but we just aren't trying.

I think that the one big problem the world has is… its bigness. Population.

I’m middle-aged - no one more shocked than I, I’m pretty sure I was 27 last birthday - and the world’s population has doubled since I was at primary school. DOUBLED. There are more human beings alive today than have ever existed in all of human history: 7+bn alive, and about 7bn dead. This is the first time in all history that this has ever happened.

On the plus side, we have a numerical advantage in the zombie apocalypse.

On the minus side, Malthus’ crisis is almost upon us, whereby our nutritional needs will outstrip our ability to grow food. This was avoided in Malthus’ time by improvements to agriculture - better breeding of plants and animals, better understanding of soil fertility, new technologies, etc. This time, we could literally run out of arable land. We’ve seen lab-grown meats on the news, we’ve had the ears bored off us about going vegan, we’ve even heard of sci-fi methods of food production in orbiting space stations - but none of these will save us from starvation. Sooner or later, the population will grow beyond anything Frankenburgers, kale, and Dyson rings can do for us.

So the best thing we could do is to stop having so many children. A maximum of 2 children per person would almost - but not quite - replace the current population (remember, each child is “shared” between 2 parents, and not everyone would have even one child). This would probably cause significant upheaval worldwide, requiring careful planning and reorganisation of social and economic structures and many individual sacrifices, but if the choice is those structures falling apart and the loss of all human freedoms and rights, which do you choose? Birth control in the water supply, free DIY sterilisation pods on every street corner - no point waiting for the New World Order to deliver, they’re a good 600 years behind schedule already.

The other thing that I find lacking is a decent common-sense education. I used to love conspiracy theories, the wackier the better - they were sooo funny, these little jokes we were all in on, tee-hee. Then I discovered people actually believed these ‘jokes’. That it wasn’t just that they hadn’t got the joke, that they didn’t know the facts that would allow them to understand that it was a joke - they dismissed the facts as another conspiracy, rejected any evidence… It was like waking up in a psychiatric ward where the staff had disappeared.

I don’t know how to solve this. Possibly by turning the conspiracy back on them? The actual truth is the secret conspiracy that’s being kept from them by the Fact Elitists, critical thinking skills as the red pill to get you ‘woke’?

Ok it’s simpler than you think and we already have the tools we need to achieve it, which is why its so difficult.

People, I hate being called normal, just need to think and I mean really THINK!

Don’t abrogate that responsibility to others.

Here’s how things work now.

Voter: Why should I vote for you?

Candidate: I’ll raise you wages by a minimum of $40 per week.

Voter: are you serious?

Candidate: Yes! In fact its one of my parties core promises.

Voter: Cool you’ve got my vote.

Sound familiar?

Try this way:

Voter: Why should I vote for you?

Candidate: I’ll raise you wages by a minimum of $40 per week.

Voter: How exactly can you achieve that?

Candidate: Well its complex but we will I guarantee it!

Voter: are you serious?

Candidate: Yes! In fact its one of my parties core promises.

Voter: At the last election you had eight ‘core promises’ of which only two were implemented. Why should we believe you this time?

Candidate: Err um.

Simply think before you vote. Don’t follow party lines think about what the lollies are saying. Look at past performance. Stop asking what will they do, they love telling you that anyway, ask them how and why instead.

If voters start thinking politicians will have to start as well and maybe start to feel accountability for their actions.

As Australian politician Al Grasby once said “Keep the bastards honest”.

Let me suggest several:

1. Small, top secret efforts like the Manhattan Project, the Lockheed Skunk Works. (Well, not that small.)
2. Very big, top-down, government driven programs — the Apollo program, big military operations, the New Deal programs come to mind.
3. Bottom-up, ad hoc, self-organizing efforts such as volunteer responses to natural disasters. (Which tend to include more organized efforts by big players like FEMA.)
4. Large, semi-organized communities of interest — notably in academia (e.g., the early Internet, particle physics experiments).

Networks, and the Internet in particular, have made 2, 3, and 4 a LOT easier.

I think the biggest problem we face is that of very, very corrupt governments.

All governments have some corruption. But I am referring to governments that are socialistic or communistic in the sense that they control the production of goods and services.

I am also referring to governments that do not protect their citizens’ right to be free. Without the various freedoms being protected, it is difficult to have a stable, sustainable society.

Some countries in Asia are like this. Most countries in Africa and South America are like this. Even Russia does not protect its people’s freedom very well.

One important aspect of freedom is free-markets. This is the freedom to trade goods and services with anyone on a voluntary, informed basis.

Free-markets also allows inventors to profit from their inventions, without the government being able to stop them. This is why we have Google, IBM, Facebook, Smartphones, Ford, Microsoft, etc.

When governments protect people’s right to be free, that country will prosper. And with prosperity comes universal education, modern medicine, the ability to reduce pollution, etc.

True freedom to live one’s life in peace as he sees fit is part of morality.

Poverty, hunger, poor sanitation and water and food and housing all go away (mostly).

If every one lived under true freedom, the world would be transformed.

Progress and betterment is a step by step process.

Step 1.

Do better to your own self. Develop, progress and prosper.

Step 2.

Do something for your family and relatives to help them progress and prosper. Remember, never give alms or funds for free to anybody. Get them integrated through proper chenneling and professional executing process and merit.

Step 3.

Do the same for your community.

See fields like politics, business, social reform or/and others you can serve the best/or could be of any help.

Step 4, 5, 6…..10 on the levels of your lane, town, city, district, constituency, province, country and region…..all levels will need the same procedure but two things will increase as you excell forwards.

1. The canvas of your operations will be increasingly bigger for which you will simultanously be able to cope with through years long experience, knowledge of work field and available (allocated) funds.
2. The level of competition in the work field will be increasingly bigger for which you will be ready to take risks and motivated to do compromises for much bigger interests and targets. Hope i didn't fall a pre to any digression and you are satisfied with the answer.

It’s called a think tank and needs much more experience than I see on Quora. Everyone needs to think through the consequences of their ideas and augments a great deal deeper that any post I have ever see here to keep from alienating the parties involved in the discussion.

The group is far too politically divided too allow it to be an open form and I doubt a closed form would survive on Quora.

At the moment we in the USA tend to want to deal with intentional problems one of two ways. Either over whelming force or capitulation. A third more respectful way that enforces the rule of law and brings an orderly end to terror has to be a better way.

We deal with disease and famine the same way. Ignoring them until its almost too late then throwing everything at the problem. Fortunately Jimmy Carter, Bill & Malinda Gates and Warn Buffet are making a slow steady effort using hard working locals to push back on disease as time when they can make a difference. Defeating the Guinea worm with education is the greatest thing Jimmy Carter ever did.

I’ll assume you mean Wikipedia. It depends on what you mean by “completely uncontrolled.” If you mean if people in countries where the government blocks websites it deems disruptive to order, then readers having uncontrolled access to Wikipedias in all languages would increase access to pro-Western, liberal-to-centrist information, including the histories of those specific countries and information that might have been suppressed there. This would, overall, be good for democracy and science worldwide. (In countries that do not restrict internet access, for example the United States, much of the public already knows the bad parts of their own history or can also get it from libraries and newspapers, so perhaps those restrictive countries have less to fear than they think.)

If by “completely uncontrolled,” you mean what if all blocked users were immediately allowed back in? As abusive as the Wikipedia disciplinary system can be, that would be a bad thing for the sites and their readers overall. Two things would happen: The users who were blocked because they had well sourced but unpopular positions or for lack of social graces would come back in at the same time, and the articles from which they were excluded might end up being modified into a more neutral and accurate form. But let’s remember that these users found themselves on the business end of disciplinary complaints in the first place because they were outnumbered by other users who were better at navigating Wikipedia’s culture than they were. It’s possible nothing would happen. The other issue is that, by the numbers, most of the blocked users and IPs, and I speak from impression, not from counting them, are vandals, people who change article content for kicks. The good that would come from readmitting people with sourced but unpopular positions and those who were blocked for social reasons would be offset by the increased difficulty of keeping the sites functional. Wikipedia’s disciplinary system needs fixing, not ripping down.

There are such sites, but finding them, and, once people are labelled as a conspiracy theorist, the internet is a very strange place, - it is like there is someone trying to kill them with bad news. The internet is not the same for everyone - and anyone with a legitimate concern, - for example the corona virus, vaccine, they are labelled as conspiracy theorists and demonised. So much so - that the possibility that there is an E.L.E. or a serious death toll, possible, not from the Corona Virus, but from the vaccine, - and there was no one willing to, or no one who was not demonised, who said something about the issues -

As far as the explanation, people are told to trust the experts, who have all undergone years of behaviour modification, and for the most part only know what answer goes with what question, and how to pass a test.

Well, besides solving world hunger and peace, my vote would be the earth as a single point of failure for mankind. In other words, let’s get humanity established on other worlds. Initially that would be bodies in the solar system, but eventually it would have to be other stars, and potentially other galaxies.

And this has nothing to do with resource exhaustion, pollution, or sustainable living, although those are all real concerns. It has to do with the fact that there are many things that can happen to this planet that we have no control over, like a large asteroid strike, a nearby supernova, or a cosmic gamma ray burst. And then there are things we do have some control over but still might happen, like a global nuclear war and “nuclear winter”, or runaway global warming.

And learning to live in environments that are less hospitable than our current planet will likely help us to better understand how to improve our own handling of this planet - you can conduct experiments on new planets (assuming they are uninhabited) that you wouldn’t want to try on the planet on which you now live.

I don't think Wikinews can or should challenge the BBC or New York Times. For a start, Wikinews articles are generally based on articles produced by traditional media organisations like the BBC and New York Times: Wikinews does very little original reporting.

It should be obvious that if you want to do original reporting, you actually have to leave your room and go to where the story is. And by that time, you have the same expenses that the BBC or NYT have in sending a reporter out to a location, or for an interview. Volunteers cannot do that, unless they are all millionaires who do not have to work for a living, and have nothing better to do.

There is a very real sense in which news coverage of current events in Wikipedia (I say Wikipedia advisedly, because Wikinews never became big enough) cannibalises the media organisations that go through the expense to report a story professionally, to the level that Wikipedia demands for a "reliable source". By aggregating such "reliable sources" into a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia effectively reduces the number of readers for the news organisations that went through the expense to create good-enough sources for Wikipedians to write an article with, and in doing so reduces news organisations' income. Many newspapers are finding it difficult to adapt their business model to the new conditions that the Internet has created, and some are struggling financially.

New and alternative news outlets are always a good thing. But to do good work, they too will have to be managed professionally, and cover the expenses without which good original news coverage is not possible. Efforts like Wikinews which are largely driven by part-time, stay-at-home volunteers who piggy-back on professionals' work are no substitute.

Wikis can be used in so many ways, and the best part is the flexibility. Here are some ways you can use a wiki in your business.

Project Management

You can make a wiki an alternative to a project management tool that organizes client data, files and task lists. Many times, the custom setup and limited restrictions make a wiki more effective and less intimidating to use.

File Archive

Another common use for a wiki in business is as a repository for business files – meeting notes, agendas, calendars, event data, etc. Having one general location for these files that’s accessible by everyone can be instrumental in keeping the team on the same page.

Support

A wiki can be used publicly (with open or closed contributions), providing support documentation for software, or answers to frequently asked questions about your product or service.

Operations Guide

One of my favorite uses for a wiki is an operations guide. I have used wikis to document processes for my own business as well as my clients’ businesses. This can be valuable when you have a team working on similar tasks and need to keep everyone in sync. Plus, it’s great to have a guide already in place should you ever need someone to fill in for you without experiencing prolonged downtime.

Collaboration

You can use a wiki as a working space for in-development ideas – publications with multiple authors, collaborative projects with colleagues, or any endeavor that requires participation by more than one person.

Notebook

On an individual basis, you can use a wiki as your own private workspace where you brainstorm, collect links, make lists and generate new ideas.

Cultures that do not embrace and promote goodness*.

*: our yearning for and then practicing goodness is what transforms us into the state of being and remaining a healthy human (not remaining the animal we are all born as). Goodness being the mix of these:

Transcendent love: a free gift of hoping for the virtuous betterment of the inner child-chooser within ourselves and others. It is unconditional with no expectations in return and frees us and others of our fears so we can gain confidence, understanding and skill without being angry or defensive.

Virtue: truthful, wise, logical, prudent, fearless, trustworthy, praiseworthy, self-restraint, lacking corruption, forgiving, organized, clean, caring, principled, wisely generous, humble, courageous.

Wisdom: allows us to avoid traps and guides us to success using accumulated insights into what works and what doesn’t work in life and relationships.