Conventional wisdom from both sides

* For most of a century we have led the free world--essentially compelled to choose sides in numerous foreign conflicts within and across borders. What are the merits of having that role and of various ways of playing that role? Could we have led by example, creating a just and prosperous society that all countries, religions and tribes would gladly emulate? Could we have stayed out of Vietnam, Iraq, the Arab Spring? In these cases, did we support a process that helped the neediest inhabitants? Can we ignore humanitarian crises or threats to allies? Must we care which thugs rule a foreign country? Could terrorism be addressed better as a law-enforcement problem rather than a military problem? Consider the blood and treasure spilled in Afghanistan for a crime that killed less than 3000/decade and humiliated us, a nation that loses 100000/year to medical errors, 40000/year to crime, 30000/year to accidents. Can we prevent nuclear war forever?
* It is widely agreed that unemployment is the major cause of social problems, such as self-destructive excesses, family dissolution, homelessness, demoralization, crime, riots, revolution. It's worth considering the history and dynamics of these problems. Virtually all pundits and leaders believe that too much unemployment is due to too little economic growth, and they propose various remedies to promote economic growth. What are the accepted mechanisms of accelerating economic growth? Are they effective, sustainable? What are their effects on national debt, personal debt, trade imbalance, resource depletion, migrations? How could employment be improved with less of these adverse effects (regulate multistate retailers, print some debt-free money, reduce work week)? Isn't it up to each sovereign country to address its own economic problems? Can our generation justify a stuff throughput about twice what's needed for health and happiness?
* The world's population keeps increasing despite resource depletion and waste accumulation. Production technology has kept wealthier populations from sinking into civil unrest and police/military governance. Any failure of the important technological systems or any failure of agriculturally essential natural support systems could lead to conflict between nations, among population segments and between populations and their governments. We don't have convenient energy reserves or fertilizer-component reserves for more than a century. Isn't it high time for leaders of all kinds to promote population-growth restraint and energy-consumption restraint? What about phosphate conservation? Can balance between destruction and restoration be achieved with gentle incentives? Humanity's greatest enterprise, civilization, is at risk.
* What are the other great challenges that really matter?