My Dad, whom I greatly respect, has been forecasting the end of life as we know it for about the last... ummmmm... 40 years or so.
He's a straight-laced Catholic and politically conservative. He actually does worry about "the future".
My basic belief is that people are people. I think Mazlow was pretty close in defining their "needs":
1. Physiological Needs (food, water, warmth, air, etc.)
2. Safety Needs (structure, protection, peace, comfort)
3. Love Needs (love, friendship, acceptance, understanding)
4. Esteem Needs (attention, self-respect, recognition)
5. Self-Actualization Needs (challenge, curiosity, growth)
As each lower level is met, the next, higher level can be achieved.
So, bottom line, while I think that change is continuous and inevitable (while sometimes not desirable to all... think Rap music...
) it doesn't mean the "end of life as we know it".
Because people are people and the life they seek is going to be based loosely around what Mazlow prioritized.
Now feel free to jump in here, tell me I'm crazy, that this is all Bush's fault, that the UN could have saved us all but we wouldn't let them, etc., etc., etc.
I continually remind my dad he's forecast "THE END" due to some event or other about once a year.. for 40 years.
Even if Hillary WERE elected, would it be THE END????? !!!! ???
Nope. In the end, people just being people would "save" us. Simply by doing what they needed to do along the lines Mazlow proposes.
