I was torn between either climate change, poverty, or inequality, but ultimately chose poverty because the problem with inequality is that it leaves many people in poverty and the problem with climate change is that it threatens to plunge most if not all of humanity into poverty (because all wealth ultimately comes from the bounty of nature).

The problem that needs addressing the most, is, and is always, the "human condition" that underlies and leads to all of these problems.

I voted climate change, but if I had two choices over-population would have been #2.

I voted climate change, but would have voted 'nominalism' if it was on the list. I believe it to be the root cause of most of those problems.

I voted political corruption, because without the ability of humanity to act in its own best interests, none of the merely practical problems can even be addressed properly. Physical problems are trivial, it is psychological problems that are intractable.

I voted political corruption, by which I mean not just occasional bribes, but the way the powers that be serve elite interests and not 'the people'. This leads to many of the other problems on the list. And many problems not on the list. In my version of 'corruption' one can be utterly corrupt and not break a single law.

I was torn between either climate change, poverty, or inequality, but ultimately chose poverty because the problem with inequality is that it leaves many people in poverty and the problem with climate change is that it threatens to plunge most if not all of humanity into poverty (because all wealth ultimately comes from the bounty of nature). — Pfhorrest

I am afraid the "poverty" here stands in for the opposite of thriving or happiness, making the choice rather trivial and non-specific.

I voted political corruption, because without the ability of humanity to act in its own best interests, none of the merely practical problems can even be addressed properly. Physical problems are trivial, it is psychological problems that are intractable. — unenlightened

I think you rather idealize "humanity," much in the way romantics idealized "the people" (as if there was such a thing).

Over population is probably the cause of some of or even most of the other problems, but their is one thing that is even worse in my opinion.

Vanity.

Overpopulation. The result of Poverty (which is driven by Inequality made intractable by Political Corruption). Also, a significant driver of Climate Change (which drives the rise in Epidemics). When automation really bites rendering increasing shares of the masses 'surplus people', Terrorism and War (with or without WMDs such as Nuclear & Bio weapons) will become even more virulent than they are currently - the latter even a preferred military-industrial-national-security policy for "thinning the herds" by malignant elites (ensconced in their Climate Change-"proofed" hardened bunkers on private / artificial islands, or mountain redoubts, or accessible-only-by-aircraft "self-sustaining" compounds).

I'm surprised at the choices, isn't it obvious that climate change is the most pressing, after all with our current population and with many governments with high levels of transparency and integrity(although I accept this count is currently falling), we are still producing so much pollution that we will soon die out from the pollution of our environment. All the other problems will be solved or reset soon anyway by this.

If somehow we can pull together and mitigate the worst excesses of climate change, we may begin to see the way forward, or at least have another go.

More importantly, if we don't address it now, we may be reduced to a primitive Stone Age way of life setting us back over 10,000 years from our 21st Century level of development. Or worse, become extinct, leaving the batton of civilisation to some other animal which survives us.

I think you rather idealize "humanity," much in the way romantics idealized "the people" (as if there was such a thing). — SophistiCat

Au contraire, I diagnose humanity as the source of the non-ideal and of all the other problems. Thus for example humanity is as real as human caused global warming and what humans do, they can stop doing. So global warming is a simple problem to solve and most of the research work has been done already by folks who care about such stuff. Simple enough to convince almost everyone to do what is necessary, except - governments are corrupt and do not act in our interests. Similarly, nuclear weapons are an easily solved problem - dismantle them and don't make any more. It is the collective madness of government that prevents it.

Did you notice what is common to all the "problems" you listed? HUMANS!!!

Very interesting so far. I would have expected nuclear weapons to come up higher!

I voted political corruption, by which I mean not just occasional bribes, but the way the powers that be serve elite interests and not 'the people'. This leads to many of the other problems on the list. And many problems not on the list. In my version of 'corruption' one can be utterly corrupt and not break a single law. — Coben

Can't necessarily argue with that.

I voted climate change, but if I had two choices over-population would have been #2. — Wayfarer

Likewise -- although I'm a little less certain about overpopulation these days. I would put nuclear weapons as second. It's still a much bigger threat than most people realize, even with the end of the Cold War.

I'm surprised at the choices, isn't it obvious that climate change is the most pressing, — Punshhh

I'm a bit surprised as well, although people have given good reasons for the other choices.

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.

Anthropocene RIP
(c12th mil BCE - c3rd mil CE)

:death: <---- :flower:

Overpopulation... — 180 Proof

× Overconsumption. :fire:

To wit: If I may answer briefly, and perhaps clumsily, but after long reflection: philosophy will be unable to effect any immediate change in the current state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all purely human reflection and endeavor. Only a singularity can save us.

:monkey:

:up:

I also voted overpopulation; from which the others flow...

Very interesting so far. I would have expected nuclear weapons to come up higher! — Xtrix

Nuclear bombs could be the end of all our problems, so it's hard to rate it.

I voted for Climate Change, and would liked to have chosen overpopulation as well -- not as #2, but as a draw with global warming.

Political corruption smells bad, is ugly, causes other serious problems, kills people, and so on -- but corruption just goes with the human territory. Like fresh fish, we spoil quickly.

Inequality and poverty? Endemic. Epidemics? See overpopulation. Biological weapons? Are they worse than nuclear weapons? Terrorism? Nah. Bad people do bad stuff. Calling it terrorism doesn't make it worse, really. War? "War is the health of the state" Randolph Bourne said during WWI. He wasn't recommending war, btw.

You've heard of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse... Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death?

I'll toss in my two cents that this is a beautiful list of first world problems. Back in the day, and in many places in the world today, finding food and water to get through the next 24 hours was and is the most pressing problem. That it never crossed your mind is a sign of just how far we've come and how privileged in time and space we are. 790 million people currently don't have access to running water. THAT"s a problem, my friend. A problem that you don't have. Count your blessings.

I also want to note to the overpopulation crowd that the actual biggest populate-related problem is UNDER-population. The Western world is not reproducing at a replacement rate and hasn't been for decades. There won't be enough workers to support the ever-aging population.

This isn't the place for this discussion, but if you Google around you'll easily find many articles explaining this point of view. That there aren't enough people being born to sustain our way of life. It's underpopulation and NOT overpopulation that's the problem.

But like I say, when we lived in caves we didn't worry about how many cave people there would be in fifty years. We were just hoping a nice meaty mastodon would wander by so we could spear it for dinner. Ogg a few caves down has this "fire" stuff so we don't have to eat raw mastodon meat anymore. I'm sick of raw mastodon meat.

Now THOSE are problems. Worrying about crap you read in the mainstream media is a fool's game. I suggest that in the new year we all try to focus on what's real and what's merely illusion.

Now THOSE are problems. Worrying about crap you read in the mainstream media is a fool's game. I suggest that in the new year we all try to focus on what's real and what's merely illusion. — fishfry

So climate change and nuclear weapons are mainstream media illusions, and the “real” problems are that many people can’t eat or find clean water.

What a stupid, stupid position.

What a stupid, stupid position. — Xtrix

Always glad to see substantive argument on the Philosophy Forum. Socrates watches with admiration and approval from his place in the pantheon of philosophy, "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." You know so much, and the rest of us so little.

You need to get your head out of your daily diet of media hysteria.

You need to get your head out of your daily diet of media hysteria. — fishfry

Yes, and be more like you and your ilk— ignoramuses who feel superior believing they have special knowledge. So edgy, so adolescent.

Please substantially tell us and the science community how climate change is “hysteria.” I eagerly await enlightenment.

Also- epidemics, war, etc, effect the third world quite a lot I’d say. But I don’t have access to your very credible, very edgy sources.

Nuclear weapons are mostly bad because of the climate change they would effect, which is in turn bad because of the poverty it would cause.

Please substantially tell us and the science community how climate change is “hysteria.” — Xtrix

Greta. I rest my case.

[Oh boy now I've done it.]

You cracked the case. Good for you.

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

You know it's funny. I quoted the exact words you used to start this thread. Taking you at your word, I gave you my opinion.

Now you might have said, "Well that's not what I was expecting but thanks for contributing your opinion."

Instead, you seem emotionally triggered by the fact that I dared to express an opinion you don't hold. And not that unusual of an opinion. Read your Chomsky. "Manufacturing consent." Read McLuhan on media. He predicted all of this decades ago. Much of what you think and believe is a function of what you read in the media. Check who owns the media. Do I really need to explain this stuff to people? You think the media are selfless public servants and nobody has an agenda?

And did I really say I don't believe in ... well whatever cause is near and dear to your heart? No. I only pointed out that most people in the developed West have no idea what a problem is. Don't know if you've noticed, but there's a worldwide revolt against the elite who think they know better but actually don't know anything at all.

The main thing is that you said you wanted opinions; but when presented with one, you retreated into anger and derision. I think you must be what they call a snowflake. Terrified of hearing an opinion you don't like.

Climate denier who’s not read a word of Chomsky. Got it.

Climate denier — Xtrix

The funny thing is I never said that. What triggered you? Was it the mastodons? PETA member?

I’m a triggered snowflake, Sean Hannity. There, now go rest easy in your reality.

You didn't include AI in the list. Some people believe it is the one big existential problem just over the horizon we need to figure out, because it's likely to be out of our hands once we achieve AGI, and it quickly bootstraps itself to super intelligence.

I'm not sure about the prospects for AGI, the singularity and super intelligence, but I can't discount it either. It should be included in the list, because it's potentially a big game changer. One that could replace humans as the driving force behind civilization.

For the skeptical, keep in mind that some of the poll options such as nukes, bio-weapons and climate change are the result of technological progress, so we'd be foolish to think they were the last threats we create. Nanotech is another potential future one, if it's weaponized. Gene editing could also possibly be used as a weapon.