Is addressing every human problem in the world at this time possible?

[Alexandru Stan]

So for a bit of time I have been following probably something that will come as a bit of a surprise to this community, maybe because this particular person calls himself a guru and a mystic. Maybe it's my own projection, but I'm still nonetheless going to throw this out here since my passion has been sparked.
 

So here is the video that relates to the title of this thread:

https://youtu.be/UGroxC5xJaA

The argument is that "for the first time we as people have the necessary capability, resource and technology to address every human problem on the planet."
How does that stand against the welfare state, and because it is talked about in the idea that businesses should take this up as their vision, would that at least qualify this argument for being in the realm of win-win negotiations? 
How does it stand against the idea of the limited resources of the planet?

The argument to me also has a moral component, altruistic in nature, that ultimately if the capability is there to solve these human problem by the able, it should also mean that the able need to be a part of this movement, to a disproportionate degree than those that do not have the capability. Maybe I'm getting it wrong.

 

The scope of the argument, is for now, just limited to our planet.

I'd like to see how this stands to the rigors of this forum, of reason and evidence. So if you prefer, do throw some fire thisaway. 

[Wuzzums]

But there is no argument.

 

If we have the possibility of solving every human problem then why are there still problems?

 

If "the able" can solve every human issue then why can't they? Doesn't this logically imply they're "not able"?

 

How can we know every problem has solutions if none of us can name said solutions?

 

Truth of the matter we don't live in a world (or universe) where all problems have solutions. Evolution is a fact of life, and evolution implies a constant stream of "problems" living organisms are hit with. It is within human nature to have infinite needs within a finite world. If we had our every need met free of any form of charge then we would simply go extinct as a species.

 

Bill Hicks managed to define the human animal in one simple joke:

 

Adam and Eve sitting in the garden of Eden. Adam days:

"Eve, here we are. At one with nature, at one with God, we live forever in harmony with all animals, are madly in love with each other, and our wishes come true the very moment we think of them."

To which Eve replies:

"Yeah, I know what you're saying. It's just not enough, isn't it."

[Mister Mister]

This kind of global utilitarianism, assumes that it is everyone's obligation to "solve" everyone's problems, and also ignores the fact that there are massive conflicts of interest between and among people in the world.  There is no "we" who unilaterally desire to solve all these problems: do the addiction counselor and the drug dealer equally want to solve the problem of drug addiction?

[Natalia]

As Wuzzums pointed out, there’s no such thing as solving all problems. They’re endless. That should be common sense. If people, or even any other life forms such as trees or amebas, were ever satisfied, the world would be very different, blank, and boring—there would be no life neither what is created by it. Schopenhauer went as far as to consider the Will—desire, longing, striving, urging—as the thing-in-itself.

 

“Then again, there is the insatiability of each individual will; every time it is satisfied a new wish is engendered, and there is no end to its eternally insatiable desires.

 

“This is because the Will, taken in itself, is the lord of worlds; since everything belongs to it, it is not satisfied with a portion of anything, but only with the whole, which, however, is endless. Meanwhile it must excite our pity when we consider how extremely little this lord of the world receives, when it makes its appearance as an individual; for the most part only just enough to maintain the body. This is why man is so very unhappy.”

— Schopenhauer in The Emptiness of Existence

[Alexandru Stan]

OK, this has already got me spinning, in a very positive way.
So what I meant by "the able" actually was the economic leadership: entrepreneurs, investors, those who have gained control of the market and resources through their work.

Second, we can neither know or not know at this point weather there is a solution to lets say something like "all the worlds problems." But what if the scope is just limited to the worlds food problems.

Also I'd like to point out that every human problem, is by it's nature infinite, but that does not mean that to solve it it also require an infinity of solutions. I can create a problem in my head right now and can keep doing that until I don't do it anymore because it is in my interest not to overwhelm my system with horror stories that are not part of this moment. The solution is to stop; the methodology to stop may require more involvement from others, a commitment to principles, and other things, but the solution can be a concrete measurable set of ideas/principles/things and resources needed.

So problem has to have a definition that regards man created fantasies or horrors, as one problem of an individual, not the multitude of problems that are innumerable.

 

 

So I have redefined two of the things:
1. "The able" are entrepreneurs, investors, and the rest of the economic leadership (with the assumption that in fact it is a leadership)
2. All the world's problems could be stated more clearly: every individual's basic problems of physical and mental health

Now the other part of the argument would be weather it is quantifiable how much it would take to solve the two basic problems, and if there already is a methodology for fixing both or either.
Lets assume that at least the physical aspects of survival that are not a making of the human mind we can solve: food, shelter, not living next to a volcano, or an island that magically disappears every year under water for many months taking the population by "surprise" every single year.
Now as for the per-individual mental health problem the speaker talks about the Inner Engineering program for that problem, broadly.

So the argument is: For the first time we have the necessary resources, technologies and capability to address every individual's basic problems of physical and mental health.
The premises: The  economic leadership, entrepreneurs and investors are the most capable in deploying the methods and materials to achieve the goal.

I'm still working on concrete numbers to back up the claim that there are enough resources, technology and capability to achieve the goal.
I'm still working on weather UPB is a standard that is met of this argument.

 

Is this more clear?
Thank you for the participation
 

[flazak]

I think we can solve the problems, but there would still be problems, just different ones

 

I think it goes from:

 

World Hunger --> World Obesity --> Technology eventually solves this? ---> Next unseen problem arises

World War ------> Keeping the peace --> Someone gets pissed off with the peacekeeping --> War

Terrorism -------> Police State --> Revolution

 

I would say that its possible to replace big problems with lesser problems though !

If you ever solve all the problems and end up in utopia I believe this so called utopia reduces your consciousness and turns people into philosophical zombies and when under these conditions someone will eventually turn up to rock the boat!