The World's Biggest Problems Identification and solution

[Shahrukh 0]

Nowadays, a lot of people seem to be unhappy and unsatisfied. Lets talk about what everyone's problems are and what can be done to solve them, at both individual level and government level.

I'll list some of the problems I can think of:

1. Natural resources running out:
Problem:
Oil, trees, natural gas, etc. are all being used up at an exponentially increasing rate. One day will come when they will run out.
Solution:
Well, we can't stop their use, but we can conserve them wherever possible by using renewable resources. Especially in energy production, using Nuclear and Terra would make energy production very light on the resources and produce little waste (as most of the nuclear waste will be consumed in the Terra process)

2. Unequal distribution of finances:
Problem:
Not everyone is born rich and not everyone gets the opportunity to get rich and even more even don't try to get rich. This creates a hug class difference between countries, cities and neighbourhoods.
Solution:
Not many people might agree, but if we all follow the Islamic teaching of Zakat (http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/), after a few years, everyone will be rich. It could even be scientifically proven if there was a simulator. Someone should try it.

3. Dishonesty:
Problem:
When we consider most of our work force, government and social security officials, we see that corruption, dishonesty and selfishness plagues everywhere.
Solution:
Hmmm�you can change yourself at least.
ďż˝
4. Violence:
Problem:
There is so much unnecessary violence everywhere. Terrorists and government fighting with each other. Armies taking over whole countries. So many people die each day because of such violence (and that is not including crime and murder).
Solution:
I am drawing a blank on this one.

What are some of the problems in your mind?

Oh, and take a look at this: http://www.livereal.com/news_and_articles/solve_all_the_worlds_problems.htm

[chini13 11]

Nice topic ..U put them all right....like providing them as an answer ..could get good marks in exam for that :PSome more can be Violence..People becoming Unbearable ...Freedom to follow any ideology and religion is being taken away ...being more revengeful .Being too busy with the material and not realizing the fact that life is more than that....Unity in diversity is not recognized ..appreciating the efforts people do.........We don't even realize some of the biggest harms we are doing in the long run...

Edited August 12, 2010 by chini13 (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

Nice topic ..

U put them all right....like providing them as an answer ..could get good marks in exam for that :P

Some more can be

Violence..People becoming Unbearable ...Freedom to follow any ideology and religion is being taken away ...being more revengeful .Being too busy with the material and not realizing the fact that life is more than that....Unity in diversity is not recognized ..appreciating the efforts people do.........We don't even realize some of the biggest harms we are doing in the long run...

 

Some good points there. Let me elaborate on them more:

 

5. Freedom to follow any ideology and religion is being taken away:

Problem:

Everyone has his own believes and values. Nowadays, people try to enforce their values on to others. Many religions are attacking other religions, by insults and not letting people practice it. Islam is a good example here. In many countries, muslim women are not allowed to wear a scarf. And almost half the world calls muslims as terrorists, even though its one the greatest sin in Islam to kill a single human being (not only muslim but anyone).

With the increasing popularity of atheists, even Christianity has come under much ridicule and the concept of religion has been questioned by many people.

Solution:

Everyone should be allowed to practice their own religions as far as it does not affect anyone else negatively.

Fights and, especially, wars could be avoided this way.

In addition, some preaching should also be allowed and tolerated by the people to avoid conflicts if someone starts preaching.

 

6. People becoming unbearable and more revengeful:

Problem:

People are so egoistic these days, they can't bear a single bad thing happening to them. And there are a lot of bad things happening everyday. This leads to increasing frustration and unrest, which in turn leads to people not tolerating anything and being more vengeful.

Solution:

We can't change the world to not be that way. But we can change ourselves to be more polite, humble and empathetic.

 

7. Being too busy with the material and not realizing the fact that life is more than that

Problem:

Commonly regarded as the rat race, today's life is mostly spent on making money. And that money is used to make stuff that makes more money.

In our childhood, we learn so many things in schools and colleges, all of which is to get a good career to earn good amounts of money.

The person who does not have money is regarded as a loser, even if he sleeps better at night.

Solution:

We have to realise that money is not the end. It is a means to an end. And that end is closeness to friends and family, satisfaction of our (good) needs and wants and spending an ethical, contributing life.

 

8. Unity and diversity is not recognized

Problem:

Even when working as a team, we are always pulling each other's ear. There is much dispute within the governments. People are fighting among themselves for the greater piece of the cake everywhere.

Solution:

Well...honestly speaking, I don't think this can ever be solved. Jealousy, greed and difference of opinion will always in the way of people.

 

9. People don't appreciate others:

Problem:

People these days are so immoral that they would take all the benefit they can from you and then move on to the next most beneficial person. Many people even make friends only because that person might be useful in the future. And when they do really help, its bye bye time.

Solution:

Once again, we can't change most of the world. And we can't stop helping other because of this. But we can change ourselves. We can give credit where it is due and remember others' favours.

 

10. We don't even realize some of the biggest harms we are doing in the long run

I'll discuss the 10th point later.

[Bikerman 2]

1. Natural resources running out:

Problem:

Oil, trees, natural gas, etc. are all being used up at an exponentially increasing rate. One day will come when they will run out.

Solution:

Well, we can't stop their use, but we can conserve them wherever possible by using renewable resources. Especially in energy production, using Nuclear and Terra would make energy production very light on the resources and produce little waste (as most of the nuclear waste will be consumed in the Terra process)

I don't understand what 'terra' is. I know the root word - latin 'ground' but what is 'terra' energy?

Not many people might agree, but if we all follow the Islamic teaching of Zakat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat), after a few years, everyone will be rich. It could even be scientifically proven if there was a simulator. Someone should try it.

You are right there - I certainly don't agree. Aside from any other consideration it is not logically possible for everyone to get rich under a system of tithing because no new money comes into the system. The best tithing can do is even out the differences between rich and poor a little. Zakat is not new and (apart from the name) is not particularly a Muslim idea. It isn't actually much different from income tax when you get right down to it.

A better question would be - why should everyone want to be rich? I don't.

3. Dishonesty:

Problem:

When we consider most of our work force, government and social security officials, we see that corruption, dishonesty and selfishness plagues everywhere.

Really? I don't see that at all. Most of the people I come across are similar to me - mainly honest but dishonest when they deem it necessary, quite generous to people they know but less willing to give to those they don't. That is, I think, how humans have been for some time and rather than getting more dishonest and more selfish I think it is probably the other way around.

 

4. Violence:

Problem:

There is so much unnecessary violence everywhere. Terrorists and government fighting with each other. Armies taking over whole countries. So many people die each day because of such violence (and that is not including crime and murder).

Solution:

I am drawing a blank on this one.

 

Well first consider the premis. Is life becoming more violent on average? Absolutely and definitely not. Life is almost unimaginably less violent today than even within my lifespan (48 years). The further back you go, the more violent it gets.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[Shahrukh 0]

I don't understand what 'terra' is. I know the root word - latin 'ground' but what is 'terra' energy?

Its a new type of energy generation which uses nuclear waste to create energy. I saw a TED talk about it by Bill Gates.
I don't think there are any running facilities yet, though.

You are right there - I certainly don't agree. Aside from any other consideration it is not logically possible for everyone to get rich under a system of tithing because no new money comes into the system. The best tithing can do is even out the differences between rich and poor a little. Zakat is not new and (apart from the name) is not particularly a Muslim idea. It isn't actually much different from income tax when you get right down to it.A better question would be - why should everyone want to be rich? I don't.

You don't need new money to come.
What Zakat does is to equalise the wealth distribution in the economy. Thus the value of money is reduced. Since it is reduced everywhere, things become cheaper. Which means people become rich.
Dude, Zakat came before income tax. It was introduced by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) more than 1400 years ago. There was no taxing system then.
People derived the progressive tax system FROM Zakat.

Why does everyone want to be rich: to live an easier life.

Really? I don't see that at all. Most of the people I come across are similar to me - mainly honest but dishonest when they deem it necessary, quite generous to people they know but less willing to give to those they don't. That is, I think, how humans have been for some time and rather than getting more dishonest and more selfish I think it is probably the other way around.

Maybe in your area. Its definitely not that way here. Just read up about Pakistan's president on Google.

Well first consider the premis. Is life becoming more violent on average? Absolutely and definitely not. Life is almost unimaginably less violent today than even within my lifespan (48 years). The further back you go, the more violent it gets.http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

Dude, hundreds of people die in my country almost every week due to bomb blasts, murder, etc. And the numbers are increasing not decreasing.
There have been military operation in two provinces to eradicate terrorists. Disputes with neighbouring countries and the USA is always going on.
How can you say its more peaceful now?

[web_designer 7]

i really like your topic Shahrukh, you just stated the most common problems of the whole societies, and chini stated some more real problems too. i agree with both of you those problems are the main source of our problems in life and if we could fix them or at least pay enough time to contribute to find solutions then we will live in an ideal community or near to it. but, unfortunately, we are not, nowadays people think very little in fixing problems or they try to fix it in the wrong way, how many people do you think they are interested in natural resources or wars in another countries or helping others...ect. very little i think, people interest in money and getting good lifestyle, live the best way no matter what. the most interest now is running after luxury and how to live day by day.on the other hand, i must say thanks god there are others even they are minority who are really interested in those problem and do their best to find solutions or at least contribute in them and teach that to their children. otherwise, we will end up very soon for not caring to each other or to our nature we live in.

[Shahrukh 0]

i really like your topic Shahrukh,

Thank you again.

you just stated the most common problems of the whole societies, and chini stated some more real problems too. i agree with both of you those problems are the main source of our problems in life and if we could fix them or at least pay enough time to contribute to find solutions then we will live in an ideal community or near to it.
but, unfortunately, we are not, nowadays people think very little in fixing problems or they try to fix it in the wrong way, how many people do you think they are interested in natural resources or wars in another countries or helping others...ect. very little i think, people interest in money and getting good lifestyle, live the best way no matter what. the most interest now is running after luxury and how to live day by day.

on the other hand, i must say thanks god there are others even they are minority who are really interested in those problem and do their best to find solutions or at least contribute in them and teach that to their children. otherwise, we will end up very soon for not caring to each other or to our nature we live in.

That is true. People live in the present only. They neither learn from past mistakes nor look into the future to be prepared for it.
Caring for others is pretty much out of the question. Sure, there are charities and organisation working for welfare. But on the individual level, few help their friends, neighbours and even relatives in need.
(Generally speaking, of course, there are exceptions; like me )

We won't get anywhere if we don't realise what the problems are. That's why I thought lets talk about it, make a list of problems and solutions and then I'll draw up a personal to-do list to help improve the future.

[Bikerman 2]

Its a new type of energy generation which uses nuclear waste to create energy. I saw a TED talk about it by Bill Gates.I don't think there are any running facilities yet, though.

Hmm...I've heard nothing about it in my circles which worries me slightly because I'd expect the physicists to have heard of it - I'll have to do some checking.

You don't need new money to come. What Zakat does is to equalise the wealth distribution in the economy. Thus the value of money is reduced. Since it is reduced everywhere, things become cheaper. Which means people become rich.Dude, Zakat came before income tax. It was introduced by the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) more than 1400 years ago. There was no taxing system then. People derived the progressive tax system FROM Zakat.

No, they didn't. Income tax was introduced here in the UK as a means of funding the war against Napolean. It was progressive from the start (10% for those earning over £60 and fractional below). Tax dates back WAY before Muhammad. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks both had quite complex systems of tax, not to mention the Romans. Also, your basic economic theory is wrong. The equalisation from Zakat is minimal. Do a worked example:
Top earner £250,000 per year
Zakat - normally implemented as 2.5% of one's wealth. After Zakat - £243750 per year. That isn't going to equalise wealth distribution more than a token amount. Zakat should be seen as an emergency welfare system rather than a progressive redistribution method (it isn't progressive anyway, progressive tax/giving increases the percentage as the earnings increase).

Why does everyone want to be rich: to live an easier life.

Think so? Many rich people would disagree.

Maybe in your area. Its definitely not that way here. Just read up about Pakistan's president on Google.

You can't generalise from one person (I know about Zardari - he was here when he should have been at home, pushing his son as the next generation of the empire).

Dude, hundreds of people die in my country almost every week due to bomb blasts, murder, etc. And the numbers are increasing not decreasing.There have been military operation in two provinces to eradicate terrorists. Disputes with neighbouring countries and the USA is always going on.
How can you say its more peaceful now?

I say it is more peaceful now because it IS. Picking a particular region is unhelpful - you can always pick somewhere were there is currently a war. I am talking over the world as a whole. It isn't really debatable, the statistics on violence are pretty clear.
Here is an article by Pinker that I suggest you read. It will give you some facts, rather than simply assertions.
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
I am very sorry for the violence you are currently undergoing - I presume you are in Pakistan? - really I am. But look back to 1971 and to 1965. How many people died then in the 71 'Bangladesh Liberation' war? 10,000?. Then go back to partition in 47. How many people died then? 700,000? 1 million?
Edited August 13, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

Hmm...I've heard nothing about it in my circles which worries me slightly because I'd expect the physicists to have heard of it - I'll have to do some checking.

Really? Maybe the speech was pretty recent. It says February 2010 here: YouTube Video

No, they didn't. Income tax was introduced here in the UK as a means of funding the war against Napolean. It was progressive from the start (10% for those earning over Ł60 and fractional below). Tax dates back WAY before Muhammad. The ancient Egyptians and Greeks both had quite complex systems of tax, not to mention the Romans.

Napolean came after Hazrat Muhammad. He was in the AD 1700s, where as Hazrat Muhammad came in AD 600s.
Although I can't say for sure, I think all the money collected as tax was actually the King's earning in the ancient times. It wasn't spent on the public as it is nowadays.

Also, your basic economic theory is wrong. The equalisation from Zakat is minimal. Do a worked example:Top earner Ł250,000 per year
Zakat - normally implemented as 2.5% of one's wealth. After Zakat - Ł243750 per year. That isn't going to equalise wealth distribution more than a token amount. Zakat should be seen as an emergency welfare system rather than a progressive redistribution method (it isn't progressive anyway, progressive tax/giving increases the percentage as the earnings increase).

If you take out interest and inflation out of the equation, which is how Islamic economic system was supposed to be, the equalisation effect will enhance a lot.
As for progressive, I did use the wrong word. Sorry about that. I meant to say that the amount increased with the increase in wealth. What is that system called?
I remember studying progressive and regressive taxes about a year ago. I guess I mixed them up a bit.

Think so? Many rich people would disagree.

Many poor people will agree. Those who don't have much food, new clothes, good mobiles, cars, homes, etc.

You can't generalise from one person (I know about Zardari - he was here when he should have been at home, pushing his son as the next generation of the empire).

I presented him just as an example. All his party members, in fact, all members of all Paksitani political parties are like that. Some are better in the sense that they do look after the public, like the Nawaz family. But when they had the government, they ate from people's money as well. Its been the same since Ayub Khan.
As for generalisation, the leader represents his people, man. And Zardari may not be the representative of many, but I think many people at his position will be just like him.

I say it is more peaceful now because it IS. Picking a particular region is unhelpful - you can always pick somewhere were there is currently a war. I am talking over the world as a whole. It isn't really debatable, the statistics on violence are pretty clear.Here is an article by Pinker that I suggest you read. It will give you some facts, rather than simply assertions.
https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker07/pinker07_index.html
I am very sorry for the violence you are currently undergoing - I presume you are in Pakistan? - really I am. But look back to 1971 and to 1965. How many people died then in the 71 'Bangladesh Liberation' war? 10,000?. Then go back to partition in 47. How many people died then? 700,000? 1 million?

You answered the last part yourself: Picking a particular region is unhelpful - you can always pick somewhere were there is currently a war. Wars are not normal times. And violence during those times are not what happens generally.
However, picking the region of Pakistan is important because of some events in the past.
Its pretty obvious that USA has been eradicating Islam in the Central Asia region to reach and control Pakistan, since its the only Islamic nuclear power. Afghanistan was the weakest, so it went there first.
USA promoted and supported Iraq in its war with Kuwait and then turned against Iraq saying that planning against USA.
With three of the stronger Muslim countries neutralised, it went after Iran and Pakistan.
They never caught Osama from Afghanistan with all their technologies or extracted any nuclear weapons from Iraq.
And all the terrorist groups that Pakistani Army has destroyed from the Northern and Western regions of Pakistan had American, Indian and Iraqi weapons and schematics.
There is no war going on here. Just unnecessary blood shed, without any known purpose. Even the killer doesn't know why they are killing.
Another very unfair thing is that USA itself is working on having nuclear weapons but stops others from developing them.
(Although much of that is out of topic. In addition, I don't blame any american nationals or religions.)

However, the point that people don't burn witches anymore is true. I agree that that kind of violence doesn't exist anymore, much thanks to education, I guess.

[Bikerman 2]

Napolean came after Hazrat Muhammad. He was in the AD 1700s, where as Hazrat Muhammad came in AD 600s.Although I can't say for sure, I think all the money collected as tax was actually the King's earning in the ancient times. It wasn't spent on the public as it is nowadays.

Yes. I know when the Napoleonic wars were - the point was that the taxation owed nothing to Zakat, it was setup in a hurry and there was no reference to Islamic systems.
As for taxation in earlier times - no, it wasn't the 'King's Earnings'. The ancient greeks had a complex system of taxation - comparable with anything the later Islamic countries developed - which included wealth tax, import taxes and duties, taxes for public buildings and works etc etc. Likewise the Romans (who didn't have any kings and developed taxation long before Augustus started the imperial era).

If you take out interest and inflation out of the equation, which is how Islamic economic system was supposed to be, the equalisation effect will enhance a lot.

But now you are talking about hypothetical dreams, not real solutions. It wouldn't make any difference at all to remove inflation and interest - that would simply fix the difference at a certain disparity, not even it up. Also bear in mind that inflation hits the poor much more, so it would actually enhance any unfairness in wealth. If all your money has to be spent on food to live, inflating the price of food is a killer.

As for progressive, I did use the wrong word. Sorry about that. I meant to say that the amount increased with the increase in wealth. What is that system called?

A fixed-percentage system

Many poor people will agree. Those who don't have much food, new clothes, good mobiles, cars, homes, etc.

Actually they won't, at least not here in the west. Most poor people are poor because they have no work. Life on the dole becomes a habit - you stay in bed all day because there is nothing to do. It is hard to imagine an 'easier' life than that. The trouble is that people don't actually want an easy life - they want an active challenging life.

I presented him just as an example. All his party members, in fact, all members of all Paksitani political parties are like that. Some are better in the sense that they do look after the public, like the Nawaz family. But when they had the government, they ate from people's money as well. Its been the same since Ayub Khan.As for generalisation, the leader represents his people, man. And Zardari may not be the representative of many, but I think many people at his position will be just like him.

Compare and contrast with the corruption in centuries gone by when leaders didn't need to worry about being re-elected - I think you will find that the institutions of the middle-ages were hugely more corrupt than today - including religions, as well as states.

You answered the last part yourself: Picking a particular region is unhelpful - you can always pick somewhere were there is currently a war.

That's why I gave you the link to Pinker's work. That considers the whole world over history and shows quite conclusively that the world is becoming less violent. It really isn't something open to debate - it is a fact.I'm not getting into the debate about the US in this thread - but I know what you are saying and I'd be happy to discuss it elsewhere - you will find few people more critical of US foreign policy than me.

However, the point that people don't burn witches anymore is true. I agree that that kind of violence doesn't exist anymore, much thanks to education, I guess.

It is much more than simply burning witches. Most people don't generally settle disputes with their fists nowadays; we have laws against assault and violent behaviour which are actually eforced; We don't regard blacks or gays as fair game for a kicking; We don't think that giving a kid a good hiding is a good idea - all these things have changed in my lifetime. If you look over longer timescales then the differences are even greater. In Victorian times violence was a way of life for all but the aristocracy. Before that you had feudalistic systems where killing peasants to set a good example was routine. The further back you go, the more routine violence you find.
Really 'dude' - read the Pinker article.

[Bikerman 2]

PS - I watched the Bill Gates presentation but still got no nearer to understanding what 'Terra' power generation is. Fortunately one of the physicists on my home forum knew. It is simply a different design of nuclear reactor that uses waste uranium without enrichment. It's actually not so different from existing technology (Fast-breeder RR1 design) and I think calling it 'new' is a bit of hype.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Bikerman (see edit history)

[Shahrukh 0]

As for taxation in earlier times - no, it wasn't the 'King's Earnings'. The ancient greeks had a complex system of taxation - comparable with anything the later Islamic countries developed - which included wealth tax, import taxes and duties, taxes for public buildings and works etc etc. Likewise the Romans (who didn't have any kings and developed taxation long before Augustus started the imperial era).

Right. I didn't know that before.

Also bear in mind that inflation hits the poor much more, so it would actually enhance any unfairness in wealth. If all your money has to be spent on food to live, inflating the price of food is a killer.

Exactly. That is why when the rich distribute their money to the poor, the poor will be better off.
Quoted from here

When a certain percentage of ones wealth is spent annually over the foregoing eight categories as prescribed in the Quran, zakat has a significant economic impact on society. Income support provided to the poor and needy would result in a measured increase of the money supply in the economy causing upward shift in demand for goods and services. To support this upward shift in the demand for basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter etc., the production facilities would gradually expand and begin to absorb the idle capital. To support the increased production, the economy would generate more jobs and new employment opportunities. This added employment in turn would generate more demand for goods and services, more room for additional investments, and finally, the growth cycle based on balance consumption would contribute to a balance economic growth.

Like you said previously, new money will not be added into the economy. But Zakat is levied on idle capital as well. And since that money was not being used, it will be now. Hence, the money flow does increase. Thus the actual money supply in the markets also increase.

Actually they won't, at least not here in the west. Most poor people are poor because they have no work. Life on the dole becomes a habit - you stay in bed all day because there is nothing to do. It is hard to imagine an 'easier' life than that. The trouble is that people don't actually want an easy life - they want an active challenging life.

How do they buy food and clothes then?

Compare and contrast...the more routine violence you find.

Ok. I'll accept your argument that violence is not INCREASING. But we are drifting from the problem I mentioned. I said that there IS a lot of violence. And we should try to reduce that. Of which I can't seem to find any solution.

[Bikerman 2]

Exactly. That is why when the rich distribute their money to the poor, the poor will be better off.

Not really.They don't stop earning money so the rich man who earns Ł250,000 per year each year gives 2.5% to the poor and the poor man who earns Ł10,000 per year each year gets a suplement of x from Zakat. How does that close the gap? It is just the same as having a 2.5% income tax on high earnings. It doesn't close the gap, it maintains it.

Like you said previously, new money will not be added into the economy. But Zakat is levied on idle capital as well. And since that money was not being used, it will be now. Hence, the money flow does increase. Thus the actual money supply in the markets also increase.

Have you ever met a rich person who would say that their money is idle? I haven't. It will be busy somewhere making more money - investments, speculations, bonds...etcNew money is added to the economy in line with increased productivity. This is, of course, bad news for the poor because another way of saying increased productivity is doing more work with less people.

How do they buy food and clothes then?

They get a weekly benefit cheque for about 50-70 quid (depending on age and whether they have disabilities or other issues).

Ok. I'll accept your argument that violence is not INCREASING. But we are drifting from the problem I mentioned. I said that there IS a lot of violence. And we should try to reduce that. Of which I can't seem to find any solution.

My argument was not about violence not increasing. I was specific. It is decreasing and doing so very markedly. That means that simply doing nothing will, eventually, lead to much lower violence. I doubt it will ever drop to zero - that seems unrealistic given human nature - but drop it most certainly will, unless there is some massive shift - such as fresh water running out, global warming making some counries uninhabitable etc, in which case we will see attempted mass migrations followed by countries closing borders and soon after open warefare for the remaining resources. About that you can do nothing except change your own behaviour to make it less likely.

[mahesh2k 0]

There is some excessive use of natural resources like fuel. F1 racing and some other programs are wasting the fuel. I see no reason F1 as sport which damages the environment and wastes natural resource. Zakat ? sorry, this will only be applied by those who are jealous of rich people and want distribution wealth without working with excuse of exploitation. Zakat as already applied in terms of VAT or TAX which is more than enough. Taking money out of illegal accounts of politicians will solve the problem instead of adding zakat to honest middle class or those who earned their wealth honestly and are tax payers as well.People will not be honest if they don't see their profit from things. If they see any loss out of any activity then they'll choose path of dishonesty to get over it. Before even thinking about stopping dishonesty, try thinking living life like gandhi, buddha (which is impossible in todays date).

[Bikerman 2]

There is some excessive use of natural resources like fuel. F1 racing and some other programs are wasting the fuel. I see no reason F1 as sport which damages the environment and wastes natural resource.

That seems to me like a very arbitrary and fairly weird choice. Rallying? NASCAR? Formula 3000? Formula Ford? They all have to go on the same principle, not to mention private planes, live music concerts..etc. Seriously, why Formula 1? 24 cars racing for 2hrs 30min every fortnight? In fact each team uses around 200,000 litres of fuel per season (including practices, tests and the races themselves.I think there are currently 11 teams. So that gives us 2,200,000 litres per season.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

The UK uses 1,763,000 bbl/day which is 159*1763000 = around 280 million litres.
So the entire fuel for a formula 1 season uses as much fuel as the UK uses in about 11 minutes.
I don't think that is going to tip the balance..do you?

Zakat ? sorry, this will only be applied by those who are jealous of rich people and want distribution wealth without working with excuse of exploitation. Zakat as already applied in terms of VAT or TAX which is more than enough. Taking money out of illegal accounts of politicians will solve the problem instead of adding zakat to honest middle class or those who earned their wealth honestly and are tax payers as well.

Well that was sort-of my point - you keep progressive taxation rather than implement a welfare tax - which is actually what Zakat is.

People will not be honest if they don't see their profit from things. If they see any loss out of any activity then they'll choose path of dishonesty to get over it. Before even thinking about stopping dishonesty, try thinking living life like gandhi, buddha (which is impossible in todays date).

You must live in some bad conditions, sorry about that. But the truth is that not everywhere is as you describe. Most of the people I know are just normally selfish and would certainly not behave criminally for some trivial reason of a small profit. People I find are driven by things other than money. But the trouble is that unless you have enough then you don't have the privilege of being motivated by higher things than money because you have to get the money you need.
I see no reason why they should not tie the salary of top management to a multiple of the lowest paid in the company. Some firms actually do. Then you say - OK, the highest paid - Chief Exec or President or whatever - they will earn no more than 75 times the lowest salary we pay. It is still a huge amount more, but it is not obscene as many are. It also makes them think about their employment practices - it suits the boss to have well paid and well motivated staff. Companies have the power to do this - as do some groups of shareholders, but they always back away using the 'got to pay the best to get the best' argument that doesn't seem to apply to doctors, nurses, teachers or in fact anyone but senior execs. The notion that the chief exec of BP actually earns his Ł10 million a year basic plus bonuses and shares seems a little ironic to me, in light of his public peformances. He looked to me like a man worth a good engineers salary - 40k per year. Neither do I believe there is some special magic talent for business that we don't see but which is what his secret is. He rose up through the company, said the right things, pressed the right palms and shafted the right obstacles. One year he is worth maybe 100,000 and next minute he is worth 10 mil.
I'm not particularly picking on him, I don't believe ANY chief exec is so outstanding, so irreplacable that they are worth the money they all give themselves by having the right people on the remuneration committee for George and George will have the right people on Edwards remuneration committee and Edward will......etc
The secret is to never stop playing the record that 'you have to pay the best to get the best'.....
So, that's my suggestion. Peg exec pay to a multiple of the minimum wage that the company pays.
Edited August 25, 2010 by Saint_Michael (see edit history)