Greening the Gadfly

[Thundril]

That'll be because there would have been no issue about the definitions of such things, now who was going-in them may have arisen as a topic of conversation.

That's what you think. There were plenty of people on board the Titanic that hadn't heard of or seen an iceberg, especially the part under the water.

i don't suppose you were referring to the passengers in steerage, who would be in the part of the ship that was permanently under the water? But you could have been. . .

[Arising_uk]

That's what you think. There were plenty of people on board the Titanic that hadn't heard of or seen an iceberg, especially the part under the water.

Then they won't have been discussing the issue. Although I'll point out that by definition none of them saw or heard the iceberg, that those below the waterline saw and heard it first, closely followed by the bridge and crew and then the more astute of the richer passengers. I also think there was a fair amount of philosophical discussion about who was getting in a life-boat, or at least near the end I can guarantee it.

[spike]

I also think there was a fair amount of philosophical discussion about who was getting in a life-boat, or at least near the end I can guarantee it.

I wonder what that philosophical discussion was about, about the getting in a life-boat. Was it something like, women and children first? Or was it something like, feet first and make sure all boats are filled before they are let down. But, then, those questions are more of the practical realm than philosophy.

Why would there have been philosophical discussions at all about filling life-boats on the Titanic? Perhaps the discussions were about should one get into the life-boats or not? After all, this was the Titanic; it's supposed to be unsinkable. Perhaps there was some skepticism about the ship sinking, skepticism being a germane subject to philosophy.

[keithprosser2]

I think the last 6 posts or so show why philosophers shouldn't discuss global warming... we'd up 4 degrees celsius before they've agreed what they are discussing.....

[Arising_uk]

I think thats because theres an assumption amongst the environmentalists that its only us who is warming the planet, whereas I thought the evidence was that its getting hotter anyway, we're just speeding the process. So if we do cut our economic output the planet, in the long run, is still going to get hotter, so does anyone have any policies for dealing with this outcome rather than thinking we can solve it?

[spike]

As philosophy the environment falls more into the category of continental philosophy. Nevertheless, we should also think of it analytically. Thinking analytical is like thinking local. Continental is like thinking global.

[spike]

Paul Keeling on why we need environmental philosophy now.

I don't understand what Keeling is going on about. Environmental philosophy does exists right now. If there wasn't any environmental philosophy around, then, what stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline?

[Arising_uk]

Paul Keeling on why we need environmental philosophy now.

I don't understand what Keeling is going on about. Environmental philosophy does exists right now. If there wasn't any environmental philosophy around, then, what stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Politics.

What do you propose to do if we stop our contribution and it still gets hotter?

[spike]

Paul Keeling on why we need environmental philosophy now.

I don't understand what Keeling is going on about. Environmental philosophy does exists right now. If there wasn't any environmental philosophy around, then, what stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline?

Politics.

What do you propose to do if we stop our contribution and it still gets hotter?

Your response is not very smart, but sarcastic.

[Arising_uk]

But before the evironmentalists got hold of the idea the climate scientists were saying its getting hotter and although they now say we are contributing I've not heard them repeal their first judgement either. They think we might be in one of the hotter periods of the Earths climatic cycles. Do you oppose nuclear power?

[spike]

Do you oppose nuclear power?

I do not oppose nuclear power.

[spike]

"Greening the Gadfly" is a cute title. But what does it mean?

In the sense used here the gadfly is the philosopher. The philosopher, like the gadfly, is a social irritant, a pesky individual who gets under our skin, constantly reminding us how to behave and that we should do better. At least that's the way it's supposed to be. So the title could also read, Greening the Philosopher, meaning that the profession should be more environmentally conscious and more outspoken about it.

According to the writer of this article there are not enough philosophers thinking green or in environmental terms. There should be more philosophers pointing out the errors of our ways concerning the environment. And to get us thinking more about what we are doing to the environment they should resort to extreme arguments to really make us feel guilty, such as if we turn on a light here or drive a car there we could be killing people on the other side of the planet.

[Arising_uk]

I do not oppose nuclear power.

Great! As if the environmentalists want their way we are going to need a lot more reactors to meet their aims on carbon emissions.

Do you think the UK should build the Severn Barrage or tidal lagoons? As we've had the plans for decades and it would provide approx 5-6% of our electricity needs for many years.

[spike]

If they can have nuclear reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers that function safely, why can't they exist on land in the same capacity?

[Arising_uk]

If they can have nuclear reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers that function safely, why can't they exist on land in the same capacity?

They can, its the spent fuel that is the issue. But those objects that you mentioned are about the least safe place to have them given the function and possible end for such vehicles.