And I think we need to start with definitions because if you don't define something properly, how can you possibly determine what it actually is. Because I think we're in this current malaise, we haven't fully defined the problem we're trying to solve. What kind of food are we delivering? What level of nutrition are we gonna provide if we're going to say we're going to end world hunger? You need to go deeper into that concept in saying that's not good enough. We need to figure out what we mean by ending world hunger. Does it mean that the topic the poorest person in the world would get this much rice this much bread this much that they'll get this much protein to look it this much some saying we have not yet fully define what we mean by? No, we can't say that because no one has actually defined what this minimum amount of food is that's why we have so many problems with these issues. Then we could say, let's figure out a way to provide that thing. I think that's one of the reasons why these problems still seem so intractable because we have not defined them to the point where we've been able to act upon them, right you can say, oh I want to try and solve world hunger and then you go to a specific country. You help a specific set of people, right, and you give them enough food to survive so that they flourish but is that the same amount of food here and here and here? There's no solution because the problem has not been fully defining. And it's the same with many of these problems that we have that plague humanity. I mean something like solving the cure for cancer heart disease that's different although there are ways of us being able to figure out those specific the specific things that lead to those things, of course, we are still trying to figure those things out I'm not saying we should stop I'm just saying that there are it's more defined that problem is more defined right but if we look at something like equality right income inequality. It's a big problem, right I mean, that's what a lot of people are saying income inequality is a big problem, so if income inequality is a big problem, how do you solve it and then you say well you just tax the rich and give to the poor how much do you tax the rich is this sustainable. It's universal basic income the problem no it's probably just getting specific symptoms right, so we have to look at these things and say to ourselves if we want to tackle these huge problems. But this is what I think the problem is in in the definition because once we as human beings can define problems down to concrete terms like for example, the word world hunger problem the way the world hunger problem if we had to fight if we could define it down to 2 pounds of rice Boba down to those that level. And if you think about it unless you define the problem down to that level, you'll never be able to solve it, so you have to pick yourself those people who are working towards solving these big problems when they don't define them down to that level.
Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thinkfuture/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thinkfuture/support