SAVE THE WORLD FROM WHAT? 

From destruction as a human habitat, as a place where people and civilization can survive and thrive, and where history can continue to unfold. (Click here for more.)

This remains to be seen. But it's surely worth a try. (Click here for more.)

Many people believe it is -which is reasonable enough, since most of us are glad to be here. (Click here for more.)

Yours. Mine. Anyone's who is prepared to help. (Click here for more.)

Click here to see a list of the most common excuses.

Calmly (but urgently), resolutely, cooperatively, comprehensively, sensibly... (Click here for more.)

Here are some widely acknowledged dangers (with your help, the list will be expanded and refined): 

Breakdown of civilized life -unchecked crime, terrorism, armed conflict, tyranny, corruption, cruelty, violence, neglect, poverty, ignorance, etc. What conditions give rise to these scourges? How can we correct them and avoid them in the future? 

Overpopulation. How are we all going to fit, and start to get the numbers down? 

Economic failure. Can our global economy be made safe for people and for our planet? Can competition and human welfare be reconciled? 

Resource depletion. Air, water, food, fuel, the ozone layer -we simply can't live without them. 

Global warming.What are we doing that we should and could stop doing? 

Pollution. Current economic arrangements make this problem seem intractable. Is there an alternative? 

War. Modern weapons and practices are making war too dangerous for everyone. 

Disease. We all need adequate living conditions and modern health care. But some new dangers are appearing. How should we be facing them? 

We don't know. Astronomers tell us that the sun will burn out in a few billion years. Biologists tell us that all species will inevitably become extinct, though they don't say when. Extrapolating from current trends, scientists and experts in many fields see humanity's future as grim, even in the fairly short term. 

Instead of despairing or turning our backs, we ought to consider how these problems might be faced, realistically. While there can be no guarantee of success, we know that our chances won't be improved by either defeatism or complacency. 

Planet Earth is our ancestral home, and our legacy to the future. We are a form of terrestrial life, and it may be our nature to love the earth and its many delights. In any case, at this point we really have nowhere else to go. 

Our technological advances in the last couple of centuries have caused unforeseen problems, and events now seem out of control. But perhaps we will be able to bring them under control, if enough of us make a concerted attempt. 

Take courage! And remember, we haven't done all that badly in our millions of years of prehistory and only about 12,000 years of history: 

• Many people have enjoyed -and many still enjoy- relatively secure, satisfying lives. Even in the most troubled times, almost all of us are glad to be alive.
• Individual communities and whole societies have managed to achieve relative peace, stability, prosperity, and progress, sometimes lasting for centuries.
• Starting from zero, our species has learned how to think and how to learn, and has amassed vast resources of reliable, valuable information -the so-called "edifice of knowledge".
• We have every reason to be proud of our achievements in science and scholarship, the arts, medicine, technology, and in social, economic, political and institutional life.

We are the only species with technologies that enable us to intervene in our habitat on a massive scale. We have already done so, often unwisely. 

As an intelligent species, we are probably the only one capable of caring about what happens in the future. Our instinctive, biological existence is heavily mediated by our observations, thoughts, ideas, memories, and reasoning, as well as the huge amounts of information that we all absorb. Accordingly, our consciousness extends well beyond the "is", the "here", and the "now". To at least some degree, all of us understand and rely on the ordinary mechanisms of cause and effect -we all know that our choices and actions can and do change outcomes. 

These unique powers and awareness make it our job to try to save the world. 

The greater the number, capacity, and variety of people who are willing to cooperate in such an enterprise, the more likely it is to succeed. 

The Internet makes it possible for us to form a community and to pool our resources and channel our efforts. 
 

1. It doesn't need saving -everything will turn out OK. 

You may be right, but we can't be certain.

That's understandable -most people are. Still, if you're in sympathy with the ideas you find here, please drop in occasionally, and tell others about WORLDSAVE.ORG

The "experts" are also too busy. They usually work for governments, private companies, or universities, and rarely set their own agendas, so we shouldn't expect them to take the initiative. Also, specialization often means an excessively narrow viewpoint. It may take lay people and "generalists" to mobilize and focus the necessary specialist expertise.

They're all laudable, as far as they go. But are they enough? What if even the sum of their separate and piecemeal efforts fails to make a critical difference?

Maybe you are. Maybe it takes a lunatic to imagine that it can be done. Let's hope there are enough of us.

Possibly. But S/He might be pleased that we're finally willing to assume responsibility for ourselves, for each other, for our home planet, and for the future, instead of trusting solely to prayer, luck, or "them".

And yet here you are, reading this. Maybe other things are equally important, or more important. But that doesn't mean this world is of no importance.

We don't have to make exact predictions, but only weigh our options, mobilize our resources, and do the best we can.

It may be. But since we can't be sure, we shouldn't throw in the towel -what have we got to lose?

But it hasn't turned out yet -give us a chance!

• It may be necessary
• It might be possible
• It is certainly desirable
• It concerns me

START HERE, START NOW 

Assuming that the world does need saving, along with major repairs and improvements, how might these tasks be addressed pragmatically and realistically, i.e. with some hope of success? 

As stated on the main page, the aim of this website is to provide a rational and constructive outlet for our concern over the fate of the Earth. 

But what does this mean, exactly? Can there be a practical, efficient, comprehensive approach? What would it entail? 

You are cordially invited to consider these questions -perhaps you already have- and to send your ideas and comments to feedback@worldsave.org. 

That's how we begin. 

This site is intended to serve as a catalyst and a vehicle for the project of saving the world, as a collective, cooperative, open-ended endeavor. It contains some provisional proposals and suggested guidelines, but no prescriptions. First we need to hear from you. We need to find out who we are, and how many. And to start comparing notes. 

The initial objective of WORLDSAVE.ORG is simply to publicize the idea that there is a job to be done, that the means to attempt it exist, and that this could be a good place to start. 

Your mail will be answered, and in a week or two a summary of the correspondence will be included on the site. Later on, we can set up an open mailing list. 

A VISION OF HOW IT MIGHT WORK 

Our task is none other than to come up with a practical program for "saving the world". This probably means: 

• Identifying the most dangerous trends.
• Devising a plausible scenario for continued human habitation of planet Earth on the best possible terms, in which prospects for "happiness" (survival, security, opportunity) are enhanced for everyone.
• Implementing the necessary changes.

But it is not necessarily an impossible one. There are plenty of resources, and the Internet can help us to mobilize them quickly and efficiently. 

Our willingness to dedicate time and effort to organizing, designing and carrying out the project is our most important resource. 

We must also draw on all relevant sources of reliable information and informed opinion. We will certainly need the expertise of biologists, socio-biologists, anthropologists, ethnologists, historians, political scientists, sociologists, economists, psychologists, social psychologists, environmental scientists, legal scholars, diplomats, philosophers, statisticians, teachers, researchers, writers, and other specialists. 

But the project should probably be moderated by lay "generalists", representing ordinary people (journalists are especially welcome, since they are the closest thing we have to professional "generalists"). 

Our findings, analyses, and proposals can be discussed and debated on the Internet and elsewhere. This should serve not only to refine and perfect our results, but also to help generate a sort of organically-enlarging consensus, initially covering the terms of the discourse (intellectual framework, aims, procedures), and ultimately its specific content. 

When the consensus becomes broad enough (both in content and in the number of adherents) political action could result. So we're talking about a means of mobilizing all appropriate intellectual resources and good will for a project that may quickly become broadly-based, self-structuring, self-correcting, and finally self-implementing. 

Thanks to the widespread diffusion of information in the past century, the proportion of informed and "modern-minded" people has grown significantly in every country and region. This enhances prospects for reaching a world-wide consensus on our problems and their possible solutions. 

Among the issues that should probably be considered for such a consensus: 

• The nature of the individual person as a unit of consciousness and feeling, and an agent of behavior that interacts with the social and physical world.
• The biological nature, history, and present circumstances of the human species.
• The current situation and prevailing trends in our physical, social, economic, and political habitat.
• The main obstacles to our survival, safety, stability and general contentment.
• The approaches and measures that offer the best hope of overcoming these obstacles.

Being "rational" means that we must be committed to the most rigorous application of modern intellectual principles and techniques, including humility, skepticism, critical reasoning, and dispassionate discussion. It means we must remain open-minded, and prepared to reconsider our most cherished beliefs. 

Being "constructive" means that we must avoid the all the familiar pitfalls, such as: ethnocentricity, parochialism, egotism, pride, self-righteousness, anger, fatalism, obscurantism, superstition, dogmatism, fanaticism, wishful thinking, fallacious reasoning, and abstruse philosophizing. We must also avoid getting bogged down in detail or sterile controversy. 

MORALE 

Our quest for a pragmatic and comprehensive approach to saving the world could offer at least a glimmer of hope, in times of increasing frustration and bewilderment, as well as fear and despair. Knowledge of the very existence of such an initiative could help restore humanity's sagging morale, and encourage more people to cooperate in our efforts. 

Please send your suggestions, criticisms, comments and questions to feedback@worldsave.org. 

Also, if you are in fundamental agreement with what you have read here, perhaps you can suggest ways to improve this initial message. 

Please tell your friends about WORLDSAVE.ORG. (Journalists or others with media connections may wish to help publicize this initiative among the off-line community -a postal address will be announced shortly). 

... for your help and support. Here's hoping that together we can make a difference!