[image: sandialabs.org]

Finding Solutions to Our Big Problems

In a world with brilliant scientists and engineers, and thoughtful philosophers and theologians; and ordinary people of good will; of supersonic jets, satellite communications and global positioning systems; of honest scholars and achievers in many disciplines; where there are hundreds of “think tanks” presumably staffed by intellectuals in deep thought seeking solutions to big issues, why do these nagging questions nevertheless persist:

• What are the biggest solvable issues that humans face?
• Who is working on them?
• How severe are these issues?
• What are the potential consequences if we do not act?
• What progress has been made?
• What resources are required?
• How much money is needed?
• Where will the brains, the brawn, the resources, and the money come from?
• Why must I be asking these questions?
• Is there a conspiracy to silence those who want to bring about change?

Most of us can identify half a dozen of the major issues that confront us. But we know little of substance about them, about their severity, or the consequences from not solving them. Less still is known about those who are, or should be, or could be taking actions to solve them. And we know virtually nothing about the resources needed, how much money, where the brainpower and the muscle power will come from in their resolution. All these questions strongly suggest that little is being done to solve them. We know a lot about those who oppose feeding the hungry, or treating those with diseases, or are opposed to cleaning up the environment, or controlling climate change, or who are content to let the poor die from neglect. But where are the solutions?

In this essay I will scratch the surface and begin a discussion of why we need to bring about change. In it I will post critical issues of such magnitude that they will be instantly recognized as issues that must be solved. I will list a few of the consequences that are almost certain to emerge if they are not solved. I have little to say about costs, money, and brain power. But I will suggest how we can identify the resources and the brainpower, the computer algorithms and software needed in their resolution, and a few of the related issues involved before we actually run out of time. I don’t presume to have answers about how to stamp out the opposition to change including greed and fear mongering. But there are logical steps that can lead us to a better understanding of the issues, how to evaluate their costs, and how to set into motion a few changes that can begin to fix the only world we know—this place we all call home.

Let’s begin by acknowledging this truism: We can only change that which we acknowledge is wrong and needs to be fixed. Common sense tells us that we cannot forever pollute the air, the lakes and streams, or the oceans. Common sense also compels us to treat the sick from communicable diseases lest we acquire them also. No special enlightenment leads us to conclude that we must stop terrorists in their tracks—in spite of who or what drives them. We also cannot let the wealthy few who oppose all change to set the agenda, and to erect more road blocks such that nothing gets done.

The Critical Issues (listed in no particular order of importance):

Species Extinction. We face extinction stemming from several fronts including rising ocean temperatures and pollution of the oceans, food shortages, and reduced pollination from a shortage of bees.

Terrorism. Radicalism from many sources threatens to force us to shunt critical resources to defend against them. Should any of these groups actually acquire weapons of mass destruction, massive deaths could ensue.

Water Shortages. 2 billion people lack access to clean water and 1 billion people do not have enough to even meet their daily needs. Every day an increasing amount of pollution seeps into rivers and lakes making them toxic to humans, and underground aquifers – our most significant sources of water – are being depleted at an alarming rate.

Nuclear Proliferation. The acquisition or development of nuclear weapons by governments or groups intent on using them has the potential to lead to all out nuclear war thereby threatening the existence of all living things.

Population Growth. World population is growing by 80 million per year. We are approaching our maximum sustainable population based on BTU per capita consumption.

Oil Depletion. 96 percent of the world’s transportation is linked to oil, a depleting resource that contributes to global warming, while we are consuming more and more of it.

Economic Collapse. Most economic systems are heavily loaded in favor of producing more and more wealth for the already wealthy thus producing unsustainable bubbles that collapse with greater and greater severity.

Global Warming. The consensus among scientists is that rising global temperatures threaten to create catastrophic weather systems, crop failures, disease outbreaks, and water shortages worldwide.

Most of the crises listed above stem from exploitation of resources and people by the few for the benefit of the few with little or no concern for the certain paths to destruction they each portend. It follows that waiting for governments to take action is just another danger to be avoided. We are thus trapped in a logical dilemma. Any solution can also be hijacked by malevolent forces to perpetuate their own evil ways. Yet solutions must be pursued with safeguards built-in to protect against those who want to stop progress and maintain the status quo.

A humanitarian solution could be funded by philanthropic persons and sources that simultaneously track issues and data, and then models solutions to them via super computers running “smart” algorithms that learn from their own experiences. It would need to be a collaborative effort, independent from governments, that links the best humanitarian organizations such as the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency, International Energy Agency, and Population Services International. Data analysis and results would be under the direction of highly credentialed scientists, working with great freedom and for nominal compensation. They would need to speak with a unified voice, authoritatively, but with a genuine human concern such that people and governments of good will would support them. A separate division of psycho/neurotic/anti-propaganda experts could operate with the objective of nullifying the efforts of all those persons and hate groups who would attack this organization.

This approach would be a Big Brothers of Honesty and Good Will solution in the face of Big Brothers of Ill Will and Evil Intentions who are presently operative. Every nation would need to contribute something to this effort so that we all have some “skin in the solution” as well as skin in the game. It’s worth a try mainly because it seeks to save the world rather than destroy it—something that has never been tried before.