Planet Earth can be viewed as patient with health problem and needs to be diagnosed so the correct treatment is applied.

While we think globally (e.g. Planet Earth as patient) we act locally (set of different landscapes compose Planet Earth), each landscape should have its own diagnosis. For example, for a given terrestrial landscape, present satellite image shows space occupied by natural forest land (N) (with ground-truthing) apart from human-controlled land (M) such as urban areas, human settlements, agricultural land, anthropocentric tree-based plantations, built-up areas, etc. Past time-series forest cover maps of the same landscape and corresponding time-series population data compose the benchmark situation. Mutually exclusive relationship of N and M (e.g. N = 1 - M) in terms of spatial and temporal perspectives are presented to the given landscape multistakeholders. Multistakeholders behold the "business-as-usual" scenario presenting a bleak future that approaches the so-called "point-of-no-return" (ecological chaos lead to insecurity of humans). Multistakeholders can then sit together to discuss strengths, weaknesses, opportunities ans threats in order to come up with possible "solution scenarios" (e.g. revised land-use planning at landscape level). My question is, "Are there obvious education, economic, social (e.g. consumerism and exponential population growth) and political barriers that prevent this "earth clinic" procedure to happen?". If, positive, how do undo the barriers and enable to change the system in line with sustainable development (e.g. 1992 Earth Summit or UNCED plus other UN recommendations).