Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 1:28 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Fri Nov 21, 2025 10:28 am personally think it's the height of human arrogance to think that we can affect the climate in any significant way. Which doesn't mean that I'm not an environmentalist, because I very much am.

An you call yourself a historian. LMAO.

Who else is to blame for the environment than the objects which is contained within it? The inanimate objects? Or the animate? or a combination of both?

Which one is free from physical law, that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction?
You have to be very ignorant of mountains of statistical fact to make that claim.
Not only that, but ignorant to life itself, every form of life evolves environmental life support systems in order just to live.
One of those systems, ranges over the entire environment, and its name is a functional mind.

No sir, I did not cause the extinction of all dem animals!
No sir, I did not pollute dem waters, or turn dat into a radioactive wasteland!
No sir, I ain't me babe, no, no, it ain't me babe, its de devil you looking for, babe.

We are becoming a life support system. Until we do, we destroy the ground upon which we walk. We are, in a metaphor, the Whore of Babylon.

You missed the Metaphor in the start, A woman is the Mother of all life, i.e., a life support system. The Bible is an outline of human evolution.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 9:34 am

It's mostly the sun that affects climate, combined with the very gradual cooling down of the earth. Humans can certainly affect their local environment, though, mostly by filling it full of rubbish.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 4:22 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 9:34 am

It's mostly the sun that affects climate, combined with the very gradual cooling down of the earth. Humans can certainly affect their local environment, though, mostly by filling it full of rubbish.

Grammar, the art of names, endows a species with the knowledge of good and bad behavior relative to the sustainability of life. We record the past and predict the future in order to regulate our own behavior. In short, we learn to listen to the environment, and respond in some beneficial manner to what we hear. All we can do, as a mind, is read, process, and write. In a metaphor, a functional mind Loves the Lord with whole body, mind and soul, Soul means our behavior, it is not an intangible piece of mystic rubbish. That is what our Grammar Matrix comprising Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry is for. Grammar is our tool as a life support system because we are a life support system designed to one day manage the whole of the environment, or as much as we can.

It is not for the purpose of self flattering gibberish that has no benefit at all.

Psychology, therefore our behavior, is commensurate with the principles of Language which are functionally resident in our mind as our Grammar Matrix, Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. In short, how well we can read, how well we can understand, determines everything we do to survive. That is what a mind is, that is what we are becoming. We are becoming the savior of life. It is our job.

To date, the human race has little understanding of what we are, why we are or how to do our biologically defined job. That is why there is an environmental crisis today. Mankind is still a primitive fool.
Say what you will, this has to change for the sake of the life on this planet.

By nature, by physical fact, we have been freely given the tools to do our job. What we see about us, is the product of our intelligence alone, of doing our own work.
You can live a life of self denial, of self flattery. It does not change the truth of what is.

We, mankind, is being made to be the Prophet and Savior of the the planet by example, what we can read, comprehend, and act on.

When it is written, that Man is made in the image of God, it means that the mind is being made to virtualize, image, the Universe in order to maintain and promote life. We do that through our Grammar Matrix.
So, you can see what we are given, what we can do with it, what we have done with it, and somewhat what we shall do with it.
And you can see how far we are from being in the Image of God. It has not yet happened.

This is the evolution of life. And, we are not the only planet that goes through this evolution. There are many jobs which have to be done to achieve the goal of life, and many levels which must be maintained. Our job is not simple, no matter how simple we are.

Every form of life is judged by the same standard of literacy upon which the Universe is, itself, expressed.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:44 pm That's why she doesn't get out of the pool to go to the toilet, it would be the height of arrogance to think her piss could affect an olympic sized pool in any significant way.

Maia wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 7:18 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Nov 22, 2025 1:44 pm That's why she doesn't get out of the pool to go to the toilet, it would be the height of arrogance to think her piss could affect an olympic sized pool in any significant way.

Whereas in the sea, it would make no difference at all, not only because of its sheer volume, but also because that's what all the fish and other creatures in it already do. Thank you for making my point, very succinctly.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm It's not arrogance to say that humans are causing the current climate change disaster-- it's scientific fact. Yes, global temperature changes naturally in cycles but these are stable when looked at over long time scales, known as Milankovitch, or Orbital, cycles. When there is a SUDDEN change in the earth's temperature it is because some disaster has occurred and wiped out most of the life on the planet--an event such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago.
According to NASA, the solar energy received by the Earth had no net increase since the 1950s while global temperature has risen markedly.
You only have to look at a graph of these cycles to see the obvious anomaly over the past few decades.
But of course no amount of scientific evidence (or even evidence we experience first hand) is going to convince some people. If it's scientific then it's a huge conspiracy by scientists to deprive people like Walker of their big cars, with the first-hand experience part being dismissed as 'natural climate change'. That's 'some' MASSIVE conspiracy, which would have had to have included Milankovitch himself (and every climate scientist since) and necessitate the falsifying of the earth's average temperature every year for decades.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm It's not arrogance to say that humans are causing the current climate change disaster-- it's scientific fact. Yes, global temperature changes naturally in cycles but these are stable when looked at over long time scales, known as Milankovitch, or Orbital, cycles. When there is a SUDDEN change in the earth's temperature it is because some disaster has occurred and wiped out most of the life on the planet--an event such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago.
According to NASA, the solar energy received by the Earth had no net increase since the 1950s while global temperature has risen markedly.
You only have to look at a graph of these cycles to see the obvious anomaly over the past few decades.
But of course no amount of scientific evidence (or even evidence we experience first hand) is going to convince some people. If it's scientific then it's a huge conspiracy by scientists to deprive people like Walker of their big cars, with the first-hand experience part being dismissed as 'natural climate change'. That's 'some' MASSIVE conspiracy, which would have had to have included Milankovitch himself (and every climate scientist since) and necessitate the falsifying of the earth's average temperature every year for decades.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:14 pm

Maybe some of the present rise in temperature is down to human activity. But one thing is sure, warmer and wetter conditions are more congenial for cultivation, and civilisation in general.

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:14 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm It's not arrogance to say that humans are causing the current climate change disaster-- it's scientific fact. Yes, global temperature changes naturally in cycles but these are stable when looked at over long time scales, known as Milankovitch, or Orbital, cycles. When there is a SUDDEN change in the earth's temperature it is because some disaster has occurred and wiped out most of the life on the planet--an event such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago.
According to NASA, the solar energy received by the Earth had no net increase since the 1950s while global temperature has risen markedly.
You only have to look at a graph of these cycles to see the obvious anomaly over the past few decades.
But of course no amount of scientific evidence (or even evidence we experience first hand) is going to convince some people. If it's scientific then it's a huge conspiracy by scientists to deprive people like Walker of their big cars, with the first-hand experience part being dismissed as 'natural climate change'. That's 'some' MASSIVE conspiracy, which would have had to have included Milankovitch himself (and every climate scientist since) and necessitate the falsifying of the earth's average temperature every year for decades.

I'm approaching this mainly from an archaeological angle. During the Neolithic period, for example, when agriculture was first introduced to Britain, the climate was significantly warmer, and wetter, than it is today. So much so that places that, even today, with all our modern techniques, are incapable of growing crops, such as Dartmoor, but many others too, were under intensive cultivation, as is proven by field boundaries and the remains of settlements where none exist today. The remains of plants and animals from that period also indicate a warmer climate, as do many other items of evidence. The British Neolithic ran from about 4000 to 2500 BC, more or less, followed by the short Chalcolithic, which essentially was still Neolithic with a bit of copper working, then the Bronze Age. The climate took a sudden turn for the worse at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and it was indeed sudden, and is known as the 4.2k event, that is, something that happened 4200 years ago. It was something pretty big, too as it affected a large area of the world. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed at this point, as did Mesopotamian civilisation. While the Neolithic, in Britain, was the time of the great megalithic monuments, such as Stonehenge and Avebury, the Bronze Age was a more violent and fragmented time, as a colder climate made resources sparser. Interestingly, though, it was still warmer than current average temperatures. Following the Bronze Age was the Iron Age, from about 700 BC, when temperatures grew even colder, and warfare, judging by burials of warriors and weapons, became even more endemic. My own favourite period is the Neolithic, of course, not least because of all the stone circles, and the abruptness of the change to the Bronze Age is very clear in the archaeological record. When I was doing my archaeology A-level at school, still thinking, at that point, of studying it at uni, I went on a number of digs, and it really is very clear when you come to that layer, as it's full of broken pottery and sometimes, if you're lucky, bits of bronze weapons. The pottery is everywhere, though, usually all smashed to pieces.

Maybe some of the present rise in temperature is down to human activity. But one thing is sure, warmer and wetter conditions are more congenial for cultivation, and civilisation in general.

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:49 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:14 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 6:29 pm It's not arrogance to say that humans are causing the current climate change disaster-- it's scientific fact. Yes, global temperature changes naturally in cycles but these are stable when looked at over long time scales, known as Milankovitch, or Orbital, cycles. When there is a SUDDEN change in the earth's temperature it is because some disaster has occurred and wiped out most of the life on the planet--an event such as the asteroid impact 65 million years ago.
According to NASA, the solar energy received by the Earth had no net increase since the 1950s while global temperature has risen markedly.
You only have to look at a graph of these cycles to see the obvious anomaly over the past few decades.
But of course no amount of scientific evidence (or even evidence we experience first hand) is going to convince some people. If it's scientific then it's a huge conspiracy by scientists to deprive people like Walker of their big cars, with the first-hand experience part being dismissed as 'natural climate change'. That's 'some' MASSIVE conspiracy, which would have had to have included Milankovitch himself (and every climate scientist since) and necessitate the falsifying of the earth's average temperature every year for decades.

I'm approaching this mainly from an archaeological angle. During the Neolithic period, for example, when agriculture was first introduced to Britain, the climate was significantly warmer, and wetter, than it is today. So much so that places that, even today, with all our modern techniques, are incapable of growing crops, such as Dartmoor, but many others too, were under intensive cultivation, as is proven by field boundaries and the remains of settlements where none exist today. The remains of plants and animals from that period also indicate a warmer climate, as do many other items of evidence. The British Neolithic ran from about 4000 to 2500 BC, more or less, followed by the short Chalcolithic, which essentially was still Neolithic with a bit of copper working, then the Bronze Age. The climate took a sudden turn for the worse at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and it was indeed sudden, and is known as the 4.2k event, that is, something that happened 4200 years ago. It was something pretty big, too as it affected a large area of the world. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed at this point, as did Mesopotamian civilisation. While the Neolithic, in Britain, was the time of the great megalithic monuments, such as Stonehenge and Avebury, the Bronze Age was a more violent and fragmented time, as a colder climate made resources sparser. Interestingly, though, it was still warmer than current average temperatures. Following the Bronze Age was the Iron Age, from about 700 BC, when temperatures grew even colder, and warfare, judging by burials of warriors and weapons, became even more endemic. My own favourite period is the Neolithic, of course, not least because of all the stone circles, and the abruptness of the change to the Bronze Age is very clear in the archaeological record. When I was doing my archaeology A-level at school, still thinking, at that point, of studying it at uni, I went on a number of digs, and it really is very clear when you come to that layer, as it's full of broken pottery and sometimes, if you're lucky, bits of bronze weapons. The pottery is everywhere, though, usually all smashed to pieces.

Maybe some of the present rise in temperature is down to human activity. But one thing is sure, warmer and wetter conditions are more congenial for cultivation, and civilisation in general.

Interesting, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Star Talk is always very accessible. Here's Neil DGT talking to one of those evil 'conspirator scientists'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqzs5VSjObE&t=780s

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 10:40 pm

accelafine wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:49 pm

Maia wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 9:14 pm

I'm approaching this mainly from an archaeological angle. During the Neolithic period, for example, when agriculture was first introduced to Britain, the climate was significantly warmer, and wetter, than it is today. So much so that places that, even today, with all our modern techniques, are incapable of growing crops, such as Dartmoor, but many others too, were under intensive cultivation, as is proven by field boundaries and the remains of settlements where none exist today. The remains of plants and animals from that period also indicate a warmer climate, as do many other items of evidence. The British Neolithic ran from about 4000 to 2500 BC, more or less, followed by the short Chalcolithic, which essentially was still Neolithic with a bit of copper working, then the Bronze Age. The climate took a sudden turn for the worse at the beginning of the Bronze Age, and it was indeed sudden, and is known as the 4.2k event, that is, something that happened 4200 years ago. It was something pretty big, too as it affected a large area of the world. The Old Kingdom of Egypt collapsed at this point, as did Mesopotamian civilisation. While the Neolithic, in Britain, was the time of the great megalithic monuments, such as Stonehenge and Avebury, the Bronze Age was a more violent and fragmented time, as a colder climate made resources sparser. Interestingly, though, it was still warmer than current average temperatures. Following the Bronze Age was the Iron Age, from about 700 BC, when temperatures grew even colder, and warfare, judging by burials of warriors and weapons, became even more endemic. My own favourite period is the Neolithic, of course, not least because of all the stone circles, and the abruptness of the change to the Bronze Age is very clear in the archaeological record. When I was doing my archaeology A-level at school, still thinking, at that point, of studying it at uni, I went on a number of digs, and it really is very clear when you come to that layer, as it's full of broken pottery and sometimes, if you're lucky, bits of bronze weapons. The pottery is everywhere, though, usually all smashed to pieces.

Maybe some of the present rise in temperature is down to human activity. But one thing is sure, warmer and wetter conditions are more congenial for cultivation, and civilisation in general.

Interesting, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Star Talk is always very accessible. Here's Neil DGT talking to one of those evil 'conspirator scientists'.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqzs5VSjObE&t=780s

I don't think there's a conspiracy involving all scientists, though we do know of individual instances of fakery. It's certainly the case, though, that only those scientists who are pro-global warming get funding, and those that aren't, are shut out, such as David Bellamy.

This is not to say that global warming research is wrong, as such, but rather, that it doesn't represent the whole picture. Even that video you linked admitted that we've managed to prevent the next ice age, which is surely a good thing. It was far less clear on the adverse consequences of warming the earth up, other than an extremely slow rise in sea levels.

The earth has been slowly cooling down ever since its formation, as its initial heat dissipates. Ice ages, for example, have only been a feature of recent geological history. One day it will cool down so much that it will become a cold, dead lump of rock, and anything we can do to slow this process down is a good thing.