Sunday, September 18, 2016


In addition to Maslow's hierarchy of needs there is Maslow's expanded hierarchy of needs. It is not clear to me that Maslow had any thing beyond inspiration with these, but never the less, they are an improvement... well sort of. The bottom 3 and a 1/2 are human needs, the remainder are dependent on which culture you live in, what your lived philosophy is, and other factors. There is tremendous cultural input in these upper levels. These are not universal.

At some point, perhaps after belonging and before self-esteem three needs to be a duty or utility function need, for making a living in our modern society, need for money to pay the rent, medical care, taxes, insurance, duty bound expenses as children braces, rent a wife, whatever. This is beyond physiological, safety, and belonging, yet not self esteem. This allows us to jobs that we hate for the money, all the time not building self-esteem. In working societies, where survival is a big win, anything more is just dreaming. Self-esteem, knowing that I am doing a good job is necessary for most trades, specialized knowledge, or similar, but where survival is more dependent on luck, as in a collapsing society such as Syria, doing may be more important than what ever we think of ourselves. Oh well, itewajda.

Religion is often used as a motivator, to create those upper needs, any yet we know that all religion is just delusion/illusion, belief of story as real, but that is not much different than a philosophy; adopting a "seams reasonable" philosophy. Science with demonstrable rational explanations must be believed, but not all science is correct. Much of science is done for the money; research can be biased. Look at the tobacco, sugar, drug, medical, chemical, GMO industries, even fertilizer industry.  There is much fertilizer there. So what I am saying is the Religion Industry, along with the charity industry, is also in the fertilizer industry. It should be lumped with advertising industry. But could a society survive without all those near useless industries, considering the unemployment and  underemployment there would be with a utility only type philosophy. That is essentially Buddhist/minimalist economic theory. To produce a sustainable world order, we have a lot to do.

As long as population growth continues, the Co2 will continue to rise. That is the most measurable thing that indicates the demand on the earth environment. It has been rising since the 1960's at a rate that is not sustainable. Fish will die from the acid level being to high to fix calcium, and that is happening now. It is too late to save many of the fish species. The decline of fish worldwide will be one of the early steps in the decline of society as we know it. Collapse or the human environment is going to happen; we cannot get governments to act until it is too late. This all will require a top down solution. Bottom up is also happening, but there are too many deniers out there to convince. Religions are still not promoting birth control, and that must happen to manage population. Religions are part of the problem. Oh well, itewajda.    

We humans have made extinct unintentional many species already. I am proposing to keep the earth livable we need to cap the population at something about 3.5 billion; that is what it was when the Co2 started it's clime. If we develop enough technology to get the Co2 to head down, than that could be the new population cap. It will not be easy, but the young are living through a exciting time. Many of us expect to die off before the problem is solved. Oh well, itewajda.  


No comments: