The purpose of this blog is to identify ideas which can help solve the major problems of humanity in order to achieve generally agreed upon goals. I'm going to do the legwork, but I'll need your help (that's the comments page).
If we had infinite amounts of time, this would be a piece of cake - like collecting all the sand 
grains from the beach one by one - not that hard, just really time consuming. Unfortunately because of our limited time on this earth we are forced to prioritize. So I'm going to spend this first post on defining our goals as human beings (yes, just one post, we can't spend all day on that, we've got problems to solve). Once we're on the same page for what our goals are, I'll spend another post on defining the big problems, i.e., those things which limit us from achieving our goals. From there, we can move on to breaking those problems into more manageable chunks (a series of smaller problems which are contained within the larger problem), and then we can get into the fun stuff: proposing solutions. Ok, recap:1) Identify goals of humanity.
2) Identify those things which limit us from achieving our goals at the largest level (we'll call them "big problems").
3) Break down the big problems into more manageable and answerable problems (we'll call them "sub-problems".
4) Start proposing solutions.
If you think this is a great idea and you're all in, then skip the next part (it's for naysayers).
Naysayers, let me try to address some of your concerns about this process:
Q) Isn't this what humanity does all day every day? Isn't this why we have politicians, media, churches, long discussions at thanksgiving dinner that turn into shouting matches? What are you doing differently?
A) I'm so glad you asked. Two responses: 1) I think the big problem is that we're not all on the same page. As odd as it may seem, I think that getting the process of goal --> problem --> solution literally on the same page will help reduce disagreements because the argument is all laid out in front you. 2) This blog will be discussing the long-term issues. I'm not talking about whether we should have a 30% payroll tax or 35% payroll tax, or the minute differences between republicans and democrats. I'm talking big stuff - like how do we want to move forward as a species.
Q) If you're taking on such big ideas, when we get to the solutions phase won't they all be so big and lofty that we won't even be able to do accomplish them?
A) Maybe, maybe not. One solution to solving our energy problem may be installing storm windows. Another may be developing an affordable electric car for the masses. Sometimes the solution will be big, and other times it may be small. My preference in this blog is for solutions which can be implemented by individuals, but all solutions are welcome.
Q) If I write in the comments section how will my comments be integrated?
A) Well, this blog is no democracy, it's a benevolent dictatorship, so ultimately I'll decide. However, the ability to include more perspectives into the goals and problems will improve the quality and quantity of potential solutions. Furthermore, it will make the document as a whole more generally accepted as more people will agree with its foundations. So, bring it on!
Q) Why is the blog called crushing rocks?
A) Because the process of argument and refinement of ideas is like crushing rocks. You have to beat them against each other until either nothing is left, or you've got a diamond. We're looking for diamonds here.
Is there a single, overlying goal for humanity which is specific enough to to derive use from, but general enough to agree on? I'll throw one out there to start:
To maintain a long-term, resource-sustainable population in which people can fully unleash their creative power and achieve their personal goals to the highest extent of their ability.
Let me crush my own rock a little here to start:
Q) What if someone's personal goals are in conflict with the personal goals of others?
A) Then we have not accomplished our goal. We need more space and more room, such that those who have conflicting personal goals have the space, tools, and resources necessary to not interfere with each other.
Q) What if someone's personal goals are simply to interfere with the goals of someone else (assume pure and simple malice towards others)?
A) Well, this is somewhat complicated. In me and my neighbor both want to plant a garden on our property line, then the fundamental problem is that we need more space and room. If my goal then becomes to kill my neighbor, it may appear that I have malice towards him/her, but the root cause was the lack of space and room. It's possible that truly malice-based goals exist - I desire only to interfere and destroy you for no reason relating to competition for human, physical, or social resources. I would say that perhaps the above goal should be augmented to exclude these types of truly malice-based goals... though, I doubt their existence outside of a couple of mentally deranged individuals.
Q) Imagine a society in which a big corporation or government convinced everyone to have the same goals. There is would be little variety in the creative power in this society, isn't that a bad thing? Shouldn't we have some requirement for variety in our goal?
A) There is no need to mandate something which, through evaluation, is critically necessary for survival, i.e., variation is a necessary tool for species survival. Furthermore, through the statement "To maintain a long-term, resource sustainable population" it is implied that individuals are at a base level of happiness, which further implies that they will have their basic needs met (food, water, shelter, community). In 2009 we're still working on these problems, but the above goal is looking a bit farther out than that.
So, what else? Please leave a comment and let's get this figured out -
