Philosophy Now Forum

Skip wrote:Sweetness matters. So does biodiversity. Jillionnaries and their accumulated stuff won't replenish the earth.

Basically you are implying that if I think something is likely then that means I want it to happen - hence the patronising reminders that biodiversity matters and that materialism is shallow {{sweet smile}}

Obvious Leo wrote:

Greta wrote:Expectations of humanity often seem akin to expecting a toddler to be reasonable.

Nicely put. We're barely out of the trees and a substantial proportion of our numbers still reckon that the events of nature are being determined by an external causal agent who we have to suck up to so we can live forever. We've got a ways to go and what we're witnessing now is just a species which has managed to outsmart itself. We know stuff that we are not mature enough to understand properly and this must inevitably have adverse consequences, rather like small kids watching internet porn and then assuming they know everything there is to know about sex.

Exactly. Humans aren't bad, just animals trying to transcend our most base impulses with varying degrees of success and failure, depending on place and time.

I am less sure than you about humanity "outsmarting itself". When you consider the possible trajectories for intelligent technological species our current issues with natural balance and resources would seem unavoidable unless:

1) they are on a large planet, much richer than the Earth, that allows intelligent species more time to become sustainably minded, or

2) their most influential ancient texts were less anthropocentric, with more appreciation of and respect for nature's systemic relationships.

This suggests to me that what we are experiencing may well be a standard life stage like multicellularity. Is it good? Is it bad? That depends on who you are. I expect that multicellularity was not a wonderful thing for the populations of microbes consumed by the new predators.

Greta wrote: biodiversity matters and that materialism is shallow.

I don't see anybody disputing this point but rather the optimistic and pessimistic angles on it being reflected. In fact I see the tide turning. We didn't obliterate ourselves in a nuclear Armageddon after WWII even though there was every indication that we might. Although a mass extinction due to global warming is now inevitable the effects can be drastically ameliorated by intelligent and timely action and even greater biodiversity could result in a very short time.

Many of the world's richest people have deeply humanist and philanthropic convictions and their voices are being heard. I still reckon the single most dangerous problem that our species faces is the pernicious influence and ubiquity of religious belief. Once the vast majority of people realise that life is something we only get one crack at then they might be able to re-adjust their values accordingly and give it their best shot. The same goes for homo sapiens as a species. We only get one go.

Greta wrote:When you consider the possible trajectories for intelligent technological species our current issues with natural balance and resources would seem unavoidable unless:

This is the same as the way I see it. A species will always overextend into its niche when the conditions are suitable and then face the problem of overpopulation when the shit hits the fan. However the fact that we know this means we should be able to do something about it. I have always maintained, and will continue to maintain, that although our planet's resources are finite our main issues as a species have got a lot more to do with resource management than they have to do with resource availability. For example a third of all the food grown in the world is chucked away uneaten and we dare to call ourselves intelligent!!

Greta wrote:2) their most influential ancient texts were less anthropocentric, with more appreciation of and respect for nature's systemic relationships.

In this respect we might be an outlier in the cosmic scheme of things. Monotheism was only invented ONCE in the entire history of our species and when we examine the history of this phenomenon it needed an awful lot of holes in the Swiss cheese to line up favourably in order for it to take hold. However once the oligarchy could see what a powerful political tool it could be it was virtually unstoppable. As a means of oppressing the masses religion is second to none because whilst more traditional forms of slavery need to be imposed from without religious subservience arises from within. The people effectively enslave themselves, which is not unlike the consumerist world we live in today. People work their guts out doing things they hate just so they can spend money they haven't got on shit they don't need in order to impress people they don't like. And yet we dare to call ourselves intelligent!!

One of the more sobering realisations I've had is that the dumbest redneck is one of the most sophisticated and intelligent entities for trillions of miles. Intelligent? That depends. At least we don't sacrifice virgins to change the weather any more!

Greta wrote:At least we don't sacrifice virgins to change the weather any more!

That's only because they're in scarce supply, but there's no sense in waxing nostalgic about the good old days.

Now we sacrifice whole countries. We've come a long way, baby.
Intelligence is a huge advantage over less intelligent life-forms... unless they're the ones making oxygen, in which case, victory isn't.
The bigger problem with intelligence is that it can so easily turn evil, and evil eats its own entrails.

"Evil" is not a word in my lexicon, skip. I think the nuns must have beaten it out of me because it's a concept I've never managed to grasp. I can understand "stupid" and I can understand "insane" but "evil" is one I don't get.

Greta wrote:

Skip wrote:Sweetness matters. So does biodiversity. Jillionnaries and their accumulated stuff won't replenish the earth.

Basically you are implying that if I think something is likely then that means I want it to happen - hence the patronising reminders that biodiversity matters and that materialism is shallow {{sweet smile}}

What? I had none of those thoughts. The only reference to anything you said was the jillionnaires laying up stuff against the collapse, and that's a notion on which you have no patent.* As for biodiversity, I meant that it doesn't matter how much money you have, if there are no pollinating insects, there won't be any food.

On reflection, though, that's not true. The survivors could have a contained artificial environment, with its own energy source and hydroponics, as they would on Mars. Eventually, when the earth repaired itself, they could come out and live on the land. But by then, I imagine, they will have learned to keep their reproduction strictly regulated.


*I've referred to this a few times over the years http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/al ... 03871.html

The Army Corps of Engineers, using $29 million in federal stimulus money, built the harbor.

how they're preparing, at tax-payers' expense, a nice cool place for themselves, available exclusively to yacht owners. You can see where the big white villas will be ranged along the hillside, each with a perfect view.

Obvious Leo wrote:"Evil" is not a word in my lexicon, skip. I think the nuns must have beaten it out of me because it's a concept I've never managed to grasp. I can understand "stupid" and I can understand "insane" but "evil" is one I don't get.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective; perhaps it's a matter of experience; perhaps it's a matter of vocation. For some people "evil" is a readily identifiable human trait; for others, it's a conundrum; for others still, it's an unacceptable concept. I have no problem with it - and my version is not the same as the nuns'.

Greta wrote:And I repeat again that you and many others hold an unbalanced view that focuses entirely on destruction without considering the construction side, and this is due to negativity bias, an evolved response as mentioned earlier.

Based on what's happening with species extermination, climate change, the economy, the geopolitical frictions which may be a catalyst to events more extreme than anything in previous centuries, it's the pollyannas who are out of sync. Events influence feelings and at this point in time it doesn't feel very good! Put another way, which may not be understood, but even if I never see a rhino or siberian tiger it would be reassuring to know they're still out there.

Greta wrote:Is human culture - the arts, morality, intelligence and understanding - really just a filthy plague polluting the Earth or something that may actually be worthwhile in the greater scheme of things?

All of these attributes belong to US for as long as we're here even though morality and understanding have very different connotations among different groups. If we are no-longer here then none of what you mention matters. Who would it be for? Some alien archaeologist we wish to posthumously impress?

Greta wrote:We are flying by the seat of our pants and making numerous mistakes as we have always done - just like any other animal.

NO! Absolutely NOT like any other animal. This analogy – if you think about it – doesn't fit together at all.

Animals, even the most advanced are limited in their responses. They think and operate within a very limited range of NOWS coordinated mostly by instinct where the least amount of mistakes happen. Humans think in advance of NOW into a far greater arena of uncertainties and unknowns. Decisions made in advance of knowing is where most of the errors are made. As Nietzsche said: Where there is great intelligence there is also great stupidity. Animals don't fit the description. That's the reason I keep saying that in the ledger of intelligence the liability side, being as great as the asset side, requires an über accountant to keep the liabilities in check.

In short, the life of an opossum is exactly now what it was a hundred thousand years ago.

Greta wrote:One day there will be an extinction event from which the biosphere never recovers. Obviously. If you think it's this one now then you are buying into "humans as super powerful beings" line.

Sorry to say, I find this to be a thoroughly absurd statement. Humans, as has already been established, are responsible for the 6th and possibly greatest mass extinction of all:

The Sixth Mass Extinction has begun!
As unbelievable as it may sound, after having read through the five mass extinctions, the sixth mass extinction is in progress, now, with animals going extinct 100 to 1,000 times (possibly even 1,000 to 10,000 times) faster than at the normal background extinction rate, which is about 10 to 25 species per year. Many researchers claim that we are in the middle of a mass extinction event faster than the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs.

Rather than a meteorite or large volcanic eruption, the alarming decline of biodiversity (diversity of species on earth) leading to the current mass extinction is the results of five major human activities:

http://www.endangeredspeciesinternation ... rview.html

Maybe it's not bad enough yet for humans to qualify as “super powerful beings”. Logically to obtain title to that spurious honor, we would have to go extinct ourselves but in this case the one's who were always first, shall be last! Besides, in terms of power, we already have that ability or damn close if we really insisted on global hara kiri! I absolutely don't get how one can describes such events within the context of "super powerful beings."

Such a designation has a far greater alliance with creation than destruction, the former being infinitely more difficult.

Greta wrote:Yet, if we became extinct tomorrow, any hypothetical aliens visiting the Earth in 10,000 years would have to excavate to find evidence of our existence. Nature will be just fine. New species will replace the extinct ones, as always. "Oh, but it takes millions of years!". That's a small fraction of the billion years life on Earth has left - unless a comet or other rogue body too big for humanity to deflect destroys the planet's surface.

No argument! But what's your point? What argument of mine are you countering? I can't find a context for this. In any event, we wouldn't be around anymore. Here once...gone forever. Whether it be in nano-seconds, millions, billions, trillions of years, or the universe recycling itself, ALL in duration would be equal to each other.

Greta wrote:Expectations of humanity often seem akin to expecting a toddler to be reasonable.

I also find this to be a highly incongruous statement. Let's hope the toddlers remain in control of their high-tech toys – which is already a matter of real concern – otherwise he may not reach puberty. Some toddler! Never heard of one causing mass extinctions. I'm certain this wouldn't happen if he were all grown up.

Dubious. Without question you're living in a different world from me. The humans in my world have never had it so good and although we're in for some difficult times ahead they'll be no more difficult than any we've had to deal with in the past and now we're far better equipped to deal with them. The current mass extinction is under way and can't be stopped but in the wider biological scheme of things this is in itself a trivial matter. What makes this extinction event different from those which came before is not just the fact that our species has caused it. Our species is also now in a position to be able to manage it in such a way that it leads to greater biodiversity and a healthier planet. Your problem is that you're not thinking on the right time scale in your doomsaying analysis of our biosphere's future. A million years is a blink of an eye to a biosphere and a hundred million years is no big deal either.

Obvious Leo wrote:Dubious. Without question you're living in a different world from me. The humans in my world have never had it so good and although we're in for some difficult times ahead they'll be no more difficult than any we've had to deal with in the past and now we're far better equipped to deal with them. The current mass extinction is under way and can't be stopped but in the wider biological scheme of things this is in itself a trivial matter. What makes this extinction event different from those which came before is not just the fact that our species has caused it. Our species is also now in a position to be able to manage it in such a way that it leads to greater biodiversity and a healthier planet. Your problem is that you're not thinking on the right time scale in your doomsaying analysis of our biosphere's future. A million years is a blink of an eye to a biosphere and a hundred million years is no big deal either.

Excellent response, Leo. Bang on.

Dubious, I'm out. It's become repetitive and circular. Note my below recent statements. Do you really believe me to be "Pollyanna-ish", as per your last post?

I am all for slowing the rate of the "Holocene Extinction Event" as much as possible. However, that doesn't mean I should not accept the reality - and the reality is that Earth's terrestrial biology is in its last stages of life, humans or not. Either we carry it on or it all dies in less than a billion years.

Do you think I'm looking forward to all this? That I like it? Of course not. I prefer the status quo as much as any animal that prefers the conditions to which it was adapted. Trouble is, reality doesn't stand still to hold desirable snapshots for us. Change is happening. Humans are major agents of change and we are careering towards the unknown without control, essentially following the scripts of physics and biology to their logical conclusions, given the circumstances.

The way I'm seeing it, billionaires and their offsiders seem most likely to carry on humanity's projects as the rest of us fall away (survival of fittest). Do I like that vision? Do I want the greedy and selfish to "win"?

This century I expect there will be disease outbreaks that will achieve a far, far greater headcount than the Black Death.

The poorest are known to be the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. First, developing countries (apart from the protected few who may well flee). Then the poor in the west (large numbers due to refugees). The middle class will effectively become the new poor by the end of the century, if they survive.

There will be sure quite a scrabble for water supplies, high ground, arable land, power generation and telecommunication assets, property, manufacturing equipment and technology (esp military). In the hard times ahead, whomever controls those assets controls everything. Futurists say that the most habitable places will be those most of would consider too cold today - places like Alaska, Northern Canada, Antarctica, Scandinavia, northern Russia, South Africa. The future of nations around the tropics appears especially dire.

So you refer to someone making predictions about upcoming disaster and chaos as a "pollyanna" - yet you also deny that your views are coloured by negativity bias.


·

• Alcohol
• Mushroom
• Sex
• Fine smoke
• The disgust/praise from complete strangers
• Making your parents proud
• Great philosophical films (Revolver for example)
• Sex
• Good food
• Someone you can be so honest with, that even insult won't add to injury

These are a few of my favorite things.

Skip wrote:What's important?
Most people will immediately think in personal terms and say - my family, my marriage, my security, my art, my state of mind - my something. And that's true; those personal issues do require the majority of our effort and concern.

But, look outside - farther. What really matters in the world?
What's important enough to spend a lot of time thinking about?
What's worth composing a lot of sentences, absorbing insults, repeating, explaining, to try to communicate?
What's worth a lot of effort trying to bring about, or to stop or to change?

World issues:
worth spending time and energy thinking, writing about; acting on.

I spend time thinking about how governments and financial powers can either alleviate or destroy lives by their actions, based on short-term ideology or profits. The lack of cohesion which would enable individuals, societies or countries to go forward with a sense of security and hope. An overall united aim seems to be key here. Health, education, infrastructure investment. Clear policies which could be on 'automatic' pilot which would be applied to any crisis. Criminals who deliberately bring about financial and world crises should be called such and punished.

I spend time thinking about how religion can bring this sense of hope to some, and total despair to others. Education seems to be key here. Teaching children to question and imagine different ways of life which although different are not necessarily wrong. Lose the divisive 'special' schools and intolerance to others. Critical thinking - dealing with emotions. Intelligent management of Hate crimes.

I spend time thinking about global resources and the effects of extreme conditions meaning mass migration of people. Technology seems to be key here. Finding effective means whereby resources are managed to cope with changing landscapes.

I spend time thinking about how election promises are broken and how people spend time thinking, writing about how mad they are at politicians who appear corrupt. All this energy expended in release of frustration - to no great effect.

So, basically most people feel powerless, too busy dealing with their own, everyday problems to attempt any action which would change world affairs. However, in this internet age, we are more aware than ever before of what is going on...the world-wide connection will grow. Even if we need to start with own self and community, simply be less accepting of intolerance and false judgements.

The truth is out there. Find it and deal with it. One step at a time. It's so easy to be overwhelmed. Your state of mind does matter most of all.
Violence against mind by fear-producing politicians and media needs questioning and clear debate undertaken at every level.
No muddiness, thanks.

Just a few of my current thoughts and writing; no real action.