Home | About | Donate

Amid 'Alarming Setbacks,' Right Livelihood Winners Embody Vision of Better World


#1

Amid 'Alarming Setbacks,' Right Livelihood Winners Embody Vision of Better World

Jon Queally, staff writer

The winners of the 2017 Right Livelihood Awards—often referred to as the Alternative Nobel Prize—were announced in Stockholm, Sweden on Tuesday in order to honor and reward the dedication and positive impact from this year's four recipients: Khadija Ismayilova from Azerbaijan, Robert Billot from the United States, Yetnebersh Nigussie from Ethiopia, and India's Colin Gonsalves.


#2

The Root Cause of nearly all of our current problems is GROSS OVERPOPULATION of Humans and the resultant competition for resources between various groups of humans and between humans and the other denizens of Mother Earth.  The pollution created by ‘first world’ humans makes the situation even worse for ‘second world’ and ‘third world’ humans and for nearly all other species on the planet.  I cannot think of one single problem that is helped by an increase in the number of humans, and until overpopulation is addressed
in a serious way all of these other “humanitarian” efforts are doomed to failure in the long run.


#3

All true but this does not mean that we should give up on things that exacerbate this condition. Corrupt governments, income disparity, poor living conditions and a myriad of worries are solvable. A bad case of the humans must be addressed but unfortunately those who must address it are more interested in the feathers in their own nests. It is likely that as things are going now the solution of famine will solve your problem.


#4

Totally off-topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Virtually all the most savage aspects of capitalism, notably pollution, is coming from wealthy countries with stable populations. We could reduce the world population to just the population of the United States, and we would not reduce all the savageries of capitalism, - from biosphere-ending pollution to grinding poverty, one bit. Conversely, we could get rid of capitalism and is savage inequalities and ever-accelerating resource consumption (which has to do with endless economic expansion not population expansion), and the world could equitably provide 10 billion people with a satisfactory quality of life for all. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t understand how capitalism works.


#5

Nonsense – see Namora’s spot-on comment above.  Temporary, relatively minor fixes are not going to solve the core problem.  The root cause of most of humanity’s – and Mother Earth’s – greatest problems must be addressed for lasting improvements in the human situation to occur.

If you don’t understand how much energy would be required to equitably distribute the resources needed for a “satisfactory quality of life for all,” then you need to do some research.  And I’ll grant you that what most of us Americans aspire to as “a satisfactory quality of life” greatly exceeds what most people could survive on, how exactly are you going to decide what “a satisfactory quality of life” means?  How does “a satisfactory quality of life” for the current ~7.5 Billion humans on this earth affect all of the other species of life?  Would the effect of creating “a satisfactory quality of life” for an increase to ~10 Billion humans mean a positive or negative change for all of the remaining species of life compared to today?