True- not meant as an exhaustive list, of course. Just off the top of my head. But you’re right, that could be a big problem - or a blessing. It’s hard to know at this point.

Goatcha. I voted climate change, because global poverty is on the way down, but serious enough changes to the climate could easily reverse that trend.

I would say climate change is the most urgent problem we face currently, but it's certainly connected to overpopulation and political corruption. Again, my biggest surprise is only one vote (so far) for nuclear weapons

Yes, if the issue of urgency is key in this vote, it is obviously climate change, because it is existential and the scientists say we need to tackle it now, to avert this existential crisis.

The other options are not urgent, or existential.

The pole is in reference to the most important problem facing humanity. There are many problems, it's more about what is the most important of them for the race as a whole.

I know there are many people struggling to find food and water in a chaotic world, but this is not an important problem for the survival of humanity as a whole, whereas there are other problems which could jeopardise the survival of humanity.

Yep. Basically it’s the root of the rest.

It has been shown relatively clearly that once people are raised above the poverty line everything else tends to get much better (all of the above although carbon emissions tend to rise with economic development - and it is up to the ‘leading’ economic nations to provide economically viable alternatives for rising nations asap). In the short term I am not pretending that mere ‘wealth’ solves any issues involving environmental pollution. It is reasonably obvious that if you’re starving, struggling to make ends meet or occupied with paying for education, that more wide reaching problems are of little to no direct concern.

Once the vast majority of people on Earth have a reasonable degree of financial stability they will acquire better education and have more immediate concerns regarding other problems.

In the short term I am not pretending that mere ‘wealth’ solves any issues involving environmental pollution. — I like sushi

I was thinking of it more the other way around: environmental problems are detrimental to wealth. Everybody has reason to care about the environment for their personal dependency on it for their wealth and well-being. People who are wealthy already are the ones with the power to do something about it, and also the ones with the most to lose long term. So, for the sake of their own wealth if nothing else, they really ought to be paying attention to the problem, or else they're going to end up as poor as everyone else when everything that they depend on for their comfortable lives collapses.

Show me a starving family who cares about anything other than finding food.

People who are wealthy already are the ones with the power to do something about it, and also the ones with the most to lose long term. — Pfhorrest

Some do. You’re wealthy and you care, don’t you? If you were trying to scrape by on a dollar a day and making choices between child A or B getting an education would you honestly sacrifice that choice for the world at large. I doubt it.

The point being you’re in a position to care and act, and people in poverty are not - and make no mistake you’re ‘wealthy’! (You’ve had an education, food on the table and no doubt have a reasonable access to monetary funds via employment opportunities others would, and do, literally die for - hence migration that carries mortal dangers).

A huge problem is the manner in which funds are allocated toward areas that have little impact upon the problems at hand. In many areas simply pumping money into it does little to no good at all. The idea that money solves all problems is silly, but ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ are not necessarily all about ‘money’. It is simply a question of ‘opportunity’ in regards to ‘wealth’/‘poverty’ - $100 in one country will go much further than in another.

If you look at schemes set up by people like Bill Gates you can see that they’ve learnt that when it comes to extremely important matters (ie. education) it is not solved by pumping money into education, as what matter FAR more is the teacher’s attitudes and passion.

So, for the sake of their own wealth if nothing else, they really ought to be paying attention to the problem, or else they're going to end up as poor as everyone else when everything that they depend on for their comfortable lives collapses. — Pfhorrest

Yeah, but we’re talking about a minority here and, as mentioned, people like yourself do care and the problems exists because not everyone in a position to do something know/care enough to do so. The poor don’t have a rational option/opportunity to live any differently.

You didn't include AI in the list. — Marchesk

Yes, I think AI, gm, nanotech and bioweapons should be on the list.

Technically wouldn’t that fall under political corruption? I guess there is a crossover though, so it probably does need an extra category - I think it’s an ‘immediate’ problem in terms of Terminator-like proportions, but it’s already an issue in the political sphere.

I would like to get a sense of what most people on here believe is the most important problem facing humanity today. — Xtrix

It is not clear what this question is asking. One way to read the question might be "What produces the most suffering for the most people now and in perpetuity?" Poverty would be a good answer, but so would death and disease, which are absent from the list. Moreover, it is not clear how granular and how proximate the answer ought to be. Poverty, for example, is a very general condition and a sink for most of the other listed issues. For example, corruption in the end produces poverty (as well as death and disease) by way of suboptimal governance.

The point of this question, which lists a hodgepodge of enduring conditions and potential threats, is also unclear. So let's say we pick one more or less general problem and wish it away. Then what?

I voted inequality because in concert with new technologies it threatens to deny large parts of the population a meaningful existence.

EDIT: And I will add that this is an answer to the specific question of what problem is in most need of adressing. Climate change needs to be adressed too for instance, but I don't think it is that pressing... because the really bad effects will only start to happen in a couple of decades. And I don't think we have any idea what the world and technology will be like in a couple of decades. Solutions to climate change could be a walk in the park then, whereas now we could spend billions and not even put a dent into the problem.

If technology will explode like it think it will, then I think inequality will cause a giant crisis long before climate causes anyway near the same damage.

Another justification is (and I've could've gone with corruption here too for that reason) that we can only adress problems if we have enough agency, as a species. Things that threathen that agency, also threaten the solution of other big problems.

It is not clear what this question is asking. — SophistiCat

Funny, no one else seems to be struggling with it. I guess that makes you special. Congrats.

The point of this question, which lists a hodgepodge of enduring conditions and potential threats, is also unclear. — SophistiCat

No it isn't. Maybe to you -- although I doubt you're being sincere -- but not to anyone else. The point was stated in the post: I'm interested to get a sense of what people would choose, if they had to. Of course I could write a thousand different qualifications and include a thousand other problems -- that goes without saying, but I was assuming we're all adults.

There's always at least one person who wants to play Socrates and claim fake confusion. So boring. Nonetheless, if something as clear and straightforward as this is really that confusing to you, feel free to simply ignore it and go on your merry way.

I thought this was intended as a philosophical post, seeing as it was posted on a philosophy board. My mistake, thanks for setting me straight in such a non-insulting and mature way.

/sarcasm Welcome to my ignore list.

Welcome to my ignore list. — SophistiCat

I'm devastated.

Technically wouldn’t that fall under political corruption? — I like sushi

At least, 'also', since I think governments should have oversight and their oversight is often compromised by revolving door stuff and lobbying, if there is any. I am not sure they need their own category in the OP, but I think they should be mentioned. I think the greatest threats are technological. Some of our tech. solutions, may end up being final.

And I see people mentioning technology as a subset of inequality. Inequality is a serious problem, but it is not final one.

And I see people mentioning technology as a subset of inequality. Inequality is a serious problem, but it is not final one. — Coben

It is if we’re all equally dead :D

I'm thinking lack of (or poor) education is a factor.

We know that educated women have less children, for example, so it's a factor in overpopulation in some way.

Someone quite literally told me the other day that, if they broke a leg, they wouldn't head off to the doctor/clinic, "I'm good thanks".
My impression is that they'd just ask Jesus, something like that.
It was just an example; I guess poor education might work both ways.

I voted political corruption because a lot of the problems listed could be caused by it. For example, nuclear weapons are misused under corrupt political leaders (although it is debated if there is a correct use for them at all) and corrupt politicians can also plunge us into poverty and start dangerous wars. Miscommunication is also one of the main causes of war in my opinion. When everyone is telling you a different truth, it is difficult to come to your own conclusion as you can often unconsciously take their view into consideration. If poor upkeep of heavily populated areas is contributed to by political leaders, it can lead to epidemics. I think terrorism will always be there, in some way or another, although I am continuing to theorize about that. It seems that the best leaders are the ones that do not desire to be in a position of power in the first place. Either way, after humanity decides on one way to destroy our existence, the world moves on, the sun will always rise and set, and the Earth will meet its end, as all living things do.

This was back in January. I wonder if "epidemics" would receive at least one vote now? My how things change.