What Is the Most Meaningful Problem of All?
Meaningful Systems Solutions to Today’s Most Pressing Problems
Over the last few months, I’ve been asking myself a big question:
What is the most meaningful problem of all?
At first, my focus was on climate change. I experimented with modeling Earth’s climate using bond graphs (a modeling language for dynamic systems), and I’ll likely share more about that in future posts. But as I thought more deeply, I remembered that climate change is actually a sub-problem of something larger: the survival of the human species.
Survival brings to mind other existential threats—such as preventing nuclear war through world peace and strengthening mental health to reduce the drivers of conflict. Slowing, stopping, or even reversing climate change also fits here as a key sub-problem of survival.
Then last month, I watched a film about human trafficking. It struck me that no matter how much money is poured into defense budgets, human trafficking may never be entirely eradicated. That realization saddened me—but it also reframed my thinking. If stopping trafficking is not strictly required for human survival, maybe survival itself is the wrong problem to optimize for.
So, what is higher than survival?
I’ve started calling this greater challenge Thriving and Harmony of the Human Species—or simply, Thriving of Humanity. Under this framing, preventing violence and trafficking, managing climate change, and promoting world peace are all essential sub-problems.
Systems Thinking and Abstraction
In systems thinking, we often move up or down in abstraction to find the right level of problem framing. The first step in analyzing a challenge like Thriving of Humanity is to model its structure into sub-functions or sub-problems.
A common way to visualize this is with a Block Definition Diagram (BDD) from SysML (Systems Modeling Language), which is similar to a class diagram in UML (Unified Modeling Language). I’ve used PlantUML to generate several examples that illustrate different ways of structuring the problem.
Step 1: Eight Mega Problems
At first, I modeled the challenge of Thriving Humanity into eight top-level categories. This gives a broad, detailed view of the problem space.
Figure A. Level 0 Mission and Level 1 Mega Problems (8 categories).
Step 2: Abstracting Further – Three Mega Problems
On reflection, several of these categories are closely related. For clarity, I regrouped them into just three overarching mega problems.
Figure B. Level 0 Mission and Level 1 Mega Problems (3 grouped categories).
The three mega problems are:
Prevent Human Self-Destruction & Violence, and Promote Flourishing
Sustain Planetary Health & Resources
Create a Space Survival Backup
Step 3: Breaking Down the Three Mega Problems
Each of these mega problems can be decomposed further into Level 2 “hard problems.” This is where the work becomes more actionable.
3.1 Prevent Human Self-Destruction & Violence
This domain covers nuclear risk reduction, reducing interpersonal violence, combating human trafficking, improving mental health care, strengthening justice systems, and building economic security.
Figure C. Level 1/2 breakdown of Preventing Human Self-Destruction & Violence.
3.2 Sustain Planetary Health & Resources
This domain includes clean energy, climate mitigation, biodiversity protection, circular economies, sustainable cities, and—importantly—the transition to plant-based diets. Food choices have profound impacts on emissions, land use, and biodiversity.
Figure D. Level 1/2 breakdown of Sustaining Planetary Health & Resources.
3.3 Create a Space Survival Backup
This domain explores how humanity could create a backup in space through site selection (Moon, Mars, or orbital habitats), life support systems (air, water, food recycling), local resource use (fuel, water, building materials), knowledge archives, and governance frameworks.
Figure E. Level 1/2 breakdown of Creating a Space Survival Backup.
Why This Matters
Each of these “mega problems” could be assigned to teams, organizations, companies, non-profits, or even individuals. The point is not that this is the definitive structure, but that modeling problems in this way allows us to:
See connections and dependencies between challenges.
Break large problems into manageable sub-problems.
Identify where different groups can contribute.
In this blog, I’ve shown three levels of abstraction:
Level 0: Mission – Support Thriving Humanity
Level 1: Mega Problems – the three grouped domains
Level 2: Hard Problems – specific challenges within each domain
We haven’t even gone to Level 3, but each of these areas is complex enough to warrant its own deep dive.
Discussion
In reality, this would be best discussed as a team rather than in a blog so I encourage you to think about these problems and see if they make sense to you. What if a team member said, I don’t think the level 1 is complete. We should really be working on subterranean communities? Realistically we may not be able to reverse climate change in time before major calamities are happening so often that the “surface” is very hazardous to live on. As someone in Minnesota, U.S.A. we have been having smoke from wildfires in Canada the last few years. Maybe another team member hearing this idea thinks, hey, we could start a company building underground homes in areas of natural disaster risks. Maybe another team member then says, “What if we built an entire city underground?” Then, another team member talks about the Silo book series by Hugh Howey and the dystopia that ensued. Perhaps after all that discussion, the group concedes that human habitation of space is far more complex than creating underground habitats for humans to live. So, the team agrees to update the top level diagram as follows. Finally, someone jokes, I guess that’s why Elon Musk started The Boring Company.
Figure F. Level 0/1 A Potential Re-Leveling with Subterranean Habitat Communities
Then, finally when the team agrees, another person says, well isn’t creating subterranean habitats just a natural part of sustaining planetary health and resources? The team member cites how buildings would be much more energy efficient if they were underground and we could have more forests and parks on the surface if we built this way. This is an inclusive innovation discussion. Next, with the new sub-terranean habitat community concept the sustain planetary health and resources mega problem might be revised and updated.
What if we built an open source platform for global mega problem solving and team formation?
Conclusion
Mere survival of the human species is not enough. We must aim higher—toward Human Thriving. Religion, spirituality, education, and culture already help us move in this direction. But what if we collectively committed to solving problems like human trafficking, hunger, and preventable disease, while also preparing for existential risks like climate change and global conflict?
I hope this example of using PlantUML and systems thinking diagrams has been useful. If you’ve never seen a problem broken down structurally before, this offers a glimpse into how hierarchy can reveal clarity.
So I leave you with these questions:
What do you think is the most meaningful problem of all—whether from this list, or from your own perspective? If you were to revise these diagrams, how would you do so and why? What should be added, removed, re-abstracted, or re-imagined?
