moral relativism

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So who isn't Jewish here? I'm not. Had a couple of Jewish girl friends. Used to be a British-Israelite for, ooooooh, 25 years. I know my history. Warts and all. Absolute fucking mind wiping horrors and all. A friend introduced me to one from the Holocaust just in the past week, that he had nowhere else to go with. And I am very well read on that. And more. I've stood by a crematorium door where a quantitatively lesser, qualitatively similar evil was done, so noteworthy it's recorded there. Never mind the ash pits nearby with 10,000 dead apiece. He is enormously well read on the Eastern Front. I didn't know it. This latest unspeakable horror. And it's known of course. In wiki. A minor obscenity in quantitative terms. Beyond belief in depraved cruelty. Not even the Einsatzgruppen did such things. An insult to wolves in homo homini lupus. Jewish sensibilities have to be immensely broad and deep in ways that Christian or even secular non-Jewish (and I've gone from one to the other) do not, can not, be, as a rule. That is so obvious here.

[Belinda]

Anyone who understands what nature is understands the harsh reality of life, that lives upon life. There is no expectation of morality that does not arise from life itself. What exactly is your argument, or difficulty with what has been stated? I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm.

Do you think that people generally yearn for life to be safe from the sabre tooth tiger and other dangers? To be safe from the sabre tooth tiger people have to cooperate to build defences. How do you get people to cooperate when they belong to rival families ,or clans , or tribes?

'I take it you do believe in a supernatural realm'

Why do you believe that (of me)? I'm not aware any of my postings would give you evidence of that (belief in a supernatural realm or no such belief). I have given evidence that I am Jewish, but that's not enough to conclude beliefs. Judaism is a practice, not a "faith". You aren't required to BELIEVE anything, just do or not do. OK, you are required to love god, but we humans seem able to love things that do not exist.

But its that 2nd paragraph quoted that I really want to discuss in terms of "what is morality", because I think that is the right starting point, how we humans have lived for 99.5% of the last million years, during which time we evolved into "modern humans" (biological sense). First some definitions.

1) Morality refers to the "right" or "wrong" of decisions/actions. It is a guide to how we SHOULD act, and therefor the decisions/actions must be possible and decidable at the time of the decision/action << in other words, I would argue that strict consequentialism cannot be used since whether the eventual outcome good or bad not certain until some later time. Probabilistic consequentialism could be used, as the eventual outcome does not change what the probability of a good outcome was >>

2) It is usual to assume that if two situations do not differ in any morally relevant regard, we must get the same moral answer of proper decision/action. I am about to argue not so. I am about to argue that there is a NON-MORAL relevant difference we need to take into account. We evolved as a social animal, an omnivorous animal. For 99.5% of our existence we lived in bands of about 50 individuals. So we knew all of them personally and could expect to interact with the same individuals repeatedly. We interacted with other humans only rarely.

This is not how we live today. We live in much larger groups, interacting with far more individuals than we could know personally. And many of the individuals with whom we interact we will never encounter again. THIS is the moral universe we know live in, one very different that the one in which our species evolved. Evolution has resulted in our brains coming with SOME initial settings, settings evolved to promote our brains learning, as children growing up, a set of moral rules << neural nets learn/are trained >> BUT, this evolution took place with humans living as we did before, not as we do now.

I am claiming that we do have an "intuitive" morality BUT it is one suited the small bands we lived in during the time we evolved. It gets triggered to a greater or lesser degree depending on how well the situation matches situations possible in that small band, If pattern matched, pull up relevant rule. If pattern not matched, not triggered, no rule found, so need to fall back on rational thought to come up with the answer. Use intuitive answer for some situations, rational for others. IWe expect the same answer if/f the two situations are the same in all morally relevant respects AND on how well they match human society during evolution of intuitive morality. The latter is a difference, but not a moral difference.

The reality is that when the rational answer differs from the intuitive answer (we try to use the rational answer in a situation where the small group pattern was matched) we feel uncomfortable, feel something is wrong with our rational answer, even though can't explain why. But this ids not so simple because it is pattern matching. We are unlikely to understand WHY something in one of the situations matched while in the other it did not.

OK so far?
[/quote]
I endorse that God is a personification of a society's ethical code. God is different from the gods of small groups of 50 or so like you described. Small groups need gods who require propitiating , gods such as 'Fertility, Horse, River, Spring water, or Dangerous Journeys. The watershed between God and gods of propitiation is told by the Biblical narrative of Abraham , Isaac , and sacrifice.

That there are so many versions of God reflects the different histories of God according to politically and geographically separated nations and empires.

I explain my discomfort such as it is is caused by my early training as a child to be a liberal believing Christian.

I can explain how those two explanations are mutually compatible but I try to make my posts concise.

Frankly I don't believe you if you are really claiming that religious Jews don't believe anything.

[MikeNovack]

Frankly I don't believe you if you are really claiming that religious Jews don't believe anything.

I didn't say that.

I said they don't feel obligated to believe. They are not commanded to believe. For example, Jews are commanded to love god, not to believe in god. If you want to say can't love without believing in existence, consider somebody saying "I love world peace". (or I love justice, I love freedom, etc.)

Judaism makes an important distinction between what one is obligated to do and what one is not. This mainly affects satisfying the requirement when in the presence of somebody who is in the same class (required to do) who does the required action. Does that now relieve one of the obligation, or not. I'll try to give a secular example.

Suppose in a society the rule is "in a crowded streetcar, if people are standing, a grown man is obligated to rise and give his seat to a standing woman". There is one standing woman. All seated men are obligated to rise. One does so. There is no longer a standing woman. Did the other seated men fail in observing the obligation? OK,now suppose instead a boy child (not yet obligated) rose and gave his seat to the woman. Did all the seated men fail?

I will repeat. Most, close to all, religious Jews DO believe. But thy would feel they do so optionally, not commanded to believe. I am saying that there could be an observant Jew, one who performs all of the 613 commands but says "I don't believe in god". This person would still consider themself an observant Jew and so would all the other observant Jews.

I am saying that is essentially different from Chritsianity. What would it mean "I don't believe in Christ, I do not believe the death of Christ washed away my sins (if I believe it did), but I am still a Christian". Would most Christians agree that possible? OK, I need to be careful here, because Christianity is very broad. So I'm not sure if I asked a "Universalist"

[Belinda]

Frankly I don't believe you if you are really claiming that religious Jews don't believe anything.

I didn't say that.

I said they don't feel obligated to believe. They are not commanded to believe. For example, Jews are commanded to love god, not to believe in god. If you want to say can't love without believing in existence, consider somebody saying "I love world peace". (or I love justice, I love freedom, etc.)

Judaism makes an important distinction between what one is obligated to do and what one is not. This mainly affects satisfying the requirement when in the presence of somebody who is in the same class (required to do) who does the required action. Does that now relieve one of the obligation, or not. I'll try to give a secular example.

Suppose in a society the rule is "in a crowded streetcar, if people are standing, a grown man is obligated to rise and give his seat to a standing woman". There is one standing woman. All seated men are obligated to rise. One does so. There is no longer a standing woman. Did the other seated men fail in observing the obligation? OK,now suppose instead a boy child (not yet obligated) rose and gave his seat to the woman. Did all the seated men fail?

I will repeat. Most, close to all, religious Jews DO believe. But thy would feel they do so optionally, not commanded to believe. I am saying that there could be an observant Jew, one who performs all of the 613 commands but says "I don't believe in god". This person would still consider themself an observant Jew and so would all the other observant Jews.

I am saying that is essentially different from Chritsianity. What would it mean "I don't believe in Christ, I do not believe the death of Christ washed away my sins (if I believe it did), but I am still a Christian". Would most Christians agree that possible? OK, I need to be careful here, because Christianity is very broad. So I'm not sure if I asked a "Universalist"

Thanks Mike. However I still would very much like to know what sort of 'believe in' you refer to. You wrote "Jews are commanded to love god, not to believe in god."

What that means to me is that believing in God is the sort of believing-in that means the same as having faith in, or trusting to. What is does not mean is the sort of existential believing-in that people do when they try to look for evidence that God exists.

The former case aligns with Job's experiences and decision. The latter case is a modern misunderstanding due to applying the rules of science where they don't apply.

The case for having faith and trusting God parallels Judeo-Christianity .Christianity took a wrong turn when Christians felt they must know all about what sort of ontic substance God is.

[iambiguous]

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

Imagine a self-driving car speeding down a narrow road when suddenly a child runs into its path. The car must decide: swerve and risk the passenger’s life, or stay the course and endanger the child? This real-world dilemma echoes the classic ‘trolley problem’ in ethics, and highlights the ethical challenges of AI.

First, the part many of us will need to acknowledge upfront: that the actual science involved here is something we accumulate almost entirely from those who actually are considerably more sophisticated in describing "how it works".

And, in this regard, what we come to believe about it then revolves largely around the stuff we do read about it.

But how is an AI perspective in regard to the moral dilemma above not going to reflect the moral and political prejudices of those who programmed it? What always escapes me here, in other words, is the part where an AI "self" either is or is not able to go beyond the programming and provide us with things it was able to "think up itself"?

And, even more intriguing [for some of us], is it able to challenge those who programmed it...even reject the programming as wrong?

Finally, will it ever be able to acquire the autonomous capacity to provide flesh and blood human beings with a deontological moral philosophy? One that does not fall back on God and religion?

Similarly, AI systems in healthcare diagnose diseases and recommend treatments, sometimes making life-or-death decisions. But can machines truly understand right from wrong?

The gap, perhaps, between providing doctors who perform abortions with the very latest up-to-date medical information, and providing politicians who enact legislation relating to abortion with the very latest up-to-day moral assessments?

And, really, what on Earth can a machine know about sex and pregnancy and abortion when it does not possess the biological capacity to experience these things itself?

Click, of course.

What happens when they make mistakes, or reflect their creators' biases? As AI integrates into our lives, it will both transform how we work and challenge our understanding of morality.

Well, for those of my ilk, the main interest here still revolves around the extent to which AI can accomplish that which flesh and blood philosophers have not even come close to accomplishing: creating a deontological framework/scaffolding such that when asked about the morality of any particular conflicting good, given any particular context, it really can provide this.

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is the variation of human moral beliefs that have developed differently for the same reason that new species of animals arise, differing in structure and form. Isolation and differing geography, the geography element is a constant, but isolation is no longer a necessary element in the development of human morality. The only other thing holding humanity back is insisting on using the supernatural as the foundation of morality through the use of varying mythologies/religions. Mythologies for those unfamiliar are the religions of others, so we are all mostly atheists, except for our brand. A unifying morality would logically be based upon a human commonality rather than differences, and that commonality is our common biology, its survival, and well-being. This is no longer the old world with isolated peoples by geographical distances developing necessarily differently due to isolation; the world is a much smaller place, and communication is instant. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. So logically, morality is a biological extension, as all things are that are not hard rock physical reality. Biological consciousness is how the world has come to know itself through the subjective manifestations of life forms that, through their experiences and understanding, project those meanings onto a meaningless world. All of life is one carbon-based biology, and humanity is one among our many related life forms. It is time we moved on, time to grow up, a great adventure lies before us, to say no is to stagnate.

[iambiguous]

Ethics for the Age of AI
Mahmoud Khatami asks, can machines make good moral decisions?

This article explores AI’s ethical challenges, including bias, privacy, and accountability. These issues, from fairness to trust, impact everyday life. So as we navigate this new era, we must ask: How can we ensure AI aligns with our ethical principles?

The future of AI is not just technological: it’s deeply moral.

Here of course the assumption for many moral objectivists is that their own ethical principles had better be the ones that the AIs align with...or they are flat out wrong. Just as are all the flesh and blood philosophers here who dare to challenge them.

Then the part whereby all the different AI companies -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _companies -- either are or are not themselves able to agree on a one size fits all universal/deontological moral philosophy? Really, given such moral conflagrations as abortion, you tell me me where AI is now in establishing a moral philosophy that all rational men and women would be obligated to embody.

At the heart of the debate over artificial intelligence ethics lies a fundamental question: what does it mean for a decision to be ethical?

Click, of course. And what does it mean for decisions to be ethical given what particular set of  circumstances? What, after all, is the AI consensus regarding conflicting goods that you yourself might be aware of.

For humans, ethical decision-making involves weighing values, considering consequences, and often navigating complex dilemmas. It requires empathy, intuition, and an understanding of context – qualities that are deeply rooted in our experiences and emotions. But can a machine, no matter how advanced, replicate this process? And even if it can, should it?

Then the part where AI machines today, in lacking any actual biological components [that I'm aware of], cannot even grasp a large number of experiences that flesh and blood human beings take for granted. What can AI today tell us about, say, the morality of consuming animal flesh or the transgender controversy?

It seems to me that only when we reach the point where we are confronting increasingly more sophisticated cyborg entities will we have to confront the possibility of an AI morality. A morality, for example, that pertains only to the machines themselves. And then re the Terminator it may end in a battle between us and them.

[MikeNovack]

Then the part where AI machines today, in lacking any actual biological components [that I'm aware of], cannot even grasp a large number of experiences that flesh and blood human beings take for granted. What can AI today tell us about, say, the morality of consuming animal flesh or the transgender controversy?

It seems to me that only when we reach the point where we are confronting increasingly more sophisticated cyborg entities will we have to confront the possibility of an AI morality. A morality, for example, that pertains only to the machines themselves. And then re the Terminator it may end in a battle between us and them.

Hardware and software, software and hardware. We are exchanging messages in a forum. Some of us are accessing the forum using browser X, running under operating system Y running on a physical computer Z. Somebody else is using respectively D, E, F. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE AT THE ABSTRACT LEVEL "FORUM". How does X being different from D, Y from E, or Z from F <<if it DID somehow make a difference, you'd call in somebody like me to find and fix the bug >>

Our brains are composed of cells called neurons. Each has a receptor where signals from some neighboring neurons arrive. At the other end are axons, through which signals get sent to some neighboring neurons. Associated with each axon might be a signal strength adjuster (think a number that multiplies signal strength. Each neuron has a threshold, a number determining if the total of the signals being received enough to cause the neuron to fire (send signals down its outgoing axons. SOME neurons also have signal channels coming in from outside the structure ans=d SOME neurons have going out.

This structure, if we use node instead of neuron, is called a neural net. In our brain done using biology. Values (like the threshold) might be the concentration of some salt in the cell.

BUT, we can also write a computer program to emulate this neural net (pretend to be all those nodes sending signals to certain other nodes). That's what the neural nets of our AI's are like. They currently are MUCH "smaller" than the neural net of our brain (far fewer nodes, far less complicated pattern of connection) but fast. That is different, in our brains biology is emulating the neural net << the neural net itself is an abstract >>

OK, we can't do this yet, but suppose we could MAP a human brain at the cell level. Assign a node for each neuron, a channel for each axon, somehow measure the threshold and all the axon signal modifier values. Signal lines in for the nerves going into the brain from other parts and lines going out that accept signals going out.And then we write a computer program to emulate it.

If the two neural nets identical, why should (or how could) the fact that one emulated by biology and the oter by softwatre make a difference?

NOTE: I do NOT believe we will ever get there (in terms of tech). The survivors of the coming ecological collapse will be too busy with other things, like how can we humans live in balance with the rest of the ecosphere on a finite planet.

[Belinda]

Moral relativism is the variation of human moral beliefs that have developed differently for the same reason that new species of animals arise, differing in structure and form. Isolation and differing geography, the geography element is a constant, but isolation is no longer a necessary element in the development of human morality. The only other thing holding humanity back is insisting on using the supernatural as the foundation of morality through the use of varying mythologies/religions. Mythologies for those unfamiliar are the religions of others, so we are all mostly atheists, except for our brand. A unifying morality would logically be based upon a human commonality rather than differences, and that commonality is our common biology, its survival, and well-being. This is no longer the old world with isolated peoples by geographical distances developing necessarily differently due to isolation; the world is a much smaller place, and communication is instant. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. So logically, morality is a biological extension, as all things are that are not hard rock physical reality. Biological consciousness is how the world has come to know itself through the subjective manifestations of life forms that, through their experiences and understanding, project those meanings onto a meaningless world. All of life is one carbon-based biology, and humanity is one among our many related life forms. It is time we moved on, time to grow up, a great adventure lies before us, to say no is to stagnate.

The"geography element" is no longer a constant; see this morning's Guardian on manmade climate change affecting Sweden, Finland, and Norway. For one of many examples a reindeer sheltering from extreme heat in motorway underpass. Another example is the ancient life style of the Sami people is soon going to be impossible due to manmade climate change.

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

[MikeNovack]

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

It would be hard to be more pessimistic than ME. However, I don't expect humans to go extinct. We are very adaptable, and currently inhabiting all the planet in extraordinary numbers for a critter of our size. If in the coming crash, 9/10 of us go, (back to a population like mid 19th Centur), still an extraordinary number for a species of our size. If ~95% of us died, still half a billion left.

No, I think the best argument against children moral. Even if in a more favored part of the world (less likely the change makes unlivable AND geography helps make defensible) those that do survive will have done horrible things to be survivors.

[Belinda]

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

It would be hard to be more pessimistic than ME. However, I don't expect humans to go extinct. We are very adaptable, and currently inhabiting all the planet in extraordinary numbers for a critter of our size. If in the coming crash, 9/10 of us go, (back to a population like mid 19th Centur), still an extraordinary number for a species of our size. If ~95% of us died, still half a billion left.

No, I think the best argument against children moral. Even if in a more favored part of the world (less likely the change makes unlivable AND geography helps make defensible) those that do survive will have done horrible things to be survivors.

I am afraid there is circumstantial evidence for your futurology. It's a long time since I read it and I must get a proper reference, but I read that mothers killed their babies so she or older more viable children could survive.

[popeye1945]

Moral relativism is the variation of human moral beliefs that have developed differently for the same reason that new species of animals arise, differing in structure and form. Isolation and differing geography, the geography element is a constant, but isolation is no longer a necessary element in the development of human morality. The only other thing holding humanity back is insisting on using the supernatural as the foundation of morality through the use of varying mythologies/religions. Mythologies for those unfamiliar are the religions of others, so we are all mostly atheists, except for our brand. A unifying morality would logically be based upon a human commonality rather than differences, and that commonality is our common biology, its survival, and well-being. This is no longer the old world with isolated peoples by geographical distances developing necessarily differently due to isolation; the world is a much smaller place, and communication is instant. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. So logically, morality is a biological extension, as all things are that are not hard rock physical reality. Biological consciousness is how the world has come to know itself through the subjective manifestations of life forms that, through their experiences and understanding, project those meanings onto a meaningless world. All of life is one carbon-based biology, and humanity is one among our many related life forms. It is time we moved on, time to grow up, a great adventure lies before us, to say no is to stagnate.

The"geography element" is no longer a constant; see this morning's Guardian on manmade climate change affecting Sweden, Finland, and Norway. For one of many examples a reindeer sheltering from extreme heat in a motorway underpass. Another example is the ancient lifestyle of the Sami people is soon going to be impossible due to manmade climate change.

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

I agree; when I walk through the small town where I live, which is quite remote from the big city. I see the devastation of young people consumed by various drugs. My thought has been that this is caused by the desolation of hope and a sense of helplessness/powerlessness. The evolution of culture that we spoke of, perhaps in a different thread, must claim ownership of this. We seem to have about as much control of cultural evolution as we do biological evolution, meaning none. Humanity has made no progress in the area of self-control; it has not evolved. It should have been a developing science, but it is no science at all. If one were to anthropomorphize, it would seem that nature's present chaos is an attempt to protect herself. Looking to the past certainly holds no answers for humanity whatsoever, unless it is the motivation to change. As that great anthropologist, the late and senior Dr Leaky once warned, Change or perish! If we are to change, we must have a realistic understanding of our relationship to the whole of nature and reality, which we don't have. The above is just some of what we must reject as detrimental to life on Earth. We must see ourselves as representatives of all life forms that do not have a voice to speak to us, but we must hear them, nonetheless. How many realize that each life form is the centre of the universe, that meanings are the forces of the world and cosmos in relation to the life forms inhabiting it? The Earth must become an entity instead of just a resource, and it must become as sacred as life itself. We cannot do that with the old religions, the old mythologies. We need a more intelligent mythology, and one that is global and based on the survival and welfare of the Earth and its inhabitants. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things! Utopian perhaps, but hope springs eternal in the human heart.

[Belinda]

Moral relativism is the variation of human moral beliefs that have developed differently for the same reason that new species of animals arise, differing in structure and form. Isolation and differing geography, the geography element is a constant, but isolation is no longer a necessary element in the development of human morality. The only other thing holding humanity back is insisting on using the supernatural as the foundation of morality through the use of varying mythologies/religions. Mythologies for those unfamiliar are the religions of others, so we are all mostly atheists, except for our brand. A unifying morality would logically be based upon a human commonality rather than differences, and that commonality is our common biology, its survival, and well-being. This is no longer the old world with isolated peoples by geographical distances developing necessarily differently due to isolation; the world is a much smaller place, and communication is instant. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things and the only source of meaning in the world. So logically, morality is a biological extension, as all things are that are not hard rock physical reality. Biological consciousness is how the world has come to know itself through the subjective manifestations of life forms that, through their experiences and understanding, project those meanings onto a meaningless world. All of life is one carbon-based biology, and humanity is one among our many related life forms. It is time we moved on, time to grow up, a great adventure lies before us, to say no is to stagnate.

The"geography element" is no longer a constant; see this morning's Guardian on manmade climate change affecting Sweden, Finland, and Norway. For one of many examples a reindeer sheltering from extreme heat in a motorway underpass. Another example is the ancient lifestyle of the Sami people is soon going to be impossible due to manmade climate change.

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

I agree; when I walk through the small town where I live, which is quite remote from the big city. I see the devastation of young people consumed by various drugs. My thought has been that this is caused by the desolation of hope and a sense of helplessness/powerlessness. The evolution of culture that we spoke of, perhaps in a different thread, must claim ownership of this. We seem to have about as much control of cultural evolution as we do biological evolution, meaning none. Humanity has made no progress in the area of self-control; it has not evolved. It should have been a developing science, but it is no science at all. If one were to anthropomorphize, it would seem that nature's present chaos is an attempt to protect herself. Looking to the past certainly holds no answers for humanity whatsoever, unless it is the motivation to change. As that great anthropologist, the late and senior Dr Leaky once warned, Change or perish! If we are to change, we must have a realistic understanding of our relationship to the whole of nature and reality, which we don't have. The above is just some of what we must reject as detrimental to life on Earth. We must see ourselves as representatives of all life forms that do not have a voice to speak to us, but we must hear them, nonetheless. How many realize that each life form is the centre of the universe, that meanings are the forces of the world and cosmos in relation to the life forms inhabiting it? The Earth must become an entity instead of just a resource, and it must become as sacred as life itself. We cannot do that with the old religions, the old mythologies. We need a more intelligent mythology, and one that is global and based on the survival and welfare of the Earth and its inhabitants. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things! Utopian perhaps, but hope springs eternal in the human heart.

Indeed and to deprive anyone of hope is the worst that anyone can do to them. Attempts to deprive of hope are to be seen all around in the world today.

All leaders of men always have been concerned with seeding and fostering hope. Honest leaders don't knowingly seed and foster false hopes at any level, economic or spiritual.

[popeye1945]

The"geography element" is no longer a constant; see this morning's Guardian on manmade climate change affecting Sweden, Finland, and Norway. For one of many examples a reindeer sheltering from extreme heat in a motorway underpass. Another example is the ancient lifestyle of the Sami people is soon going to be impossible due to manmade climate change.

I am more pessimistic than you. Many educated young people choose not to have babies as the future of life on Earth looks increasingly impossible.

I agree; when I walk through the small town where I live, which is quite remote from the big city. I see the devastation of young people consumed by various drugs. My thought has been that this is caused by the desolation of hope and a sense of helplessness/powerlessness. The evolution of culture that we spoke of, perhaps in a different thread, must claim ownership of this. We seem to have about as much control of cultural evolution as we do biological evolution, meaning none. Humanity has made no progress in the area of self-control; it has not evolved. It should have been a developing science, but it is no science at all. If one were to anthropomorphize, it would seem that nature's present chaos is an attempt to protect herself. Looking to the past certainly holds no answers for humanity whatsoever, unless it is the motivation to change. As that great anthropologist, the late and senior Dr Leaky once warned, Change or perish! If we are to change, we must have a realistic understanding of our relationship to the whole of nature and reality, which we don't have. The above is just some of what we must reject as detrimental to life on Earth. We must see ourselves as representatives of all life forms that do not have a voice to speak to us, but we must hear them, nonetheless. How many realize that each life form is the centre of the universe, that meanings are the forces of the world and cosmos in relation to the life forms inhabiting it? The Earth must become an entity instead of just a resource, and it must become as sacred as life itself. We cannot do that with the old religions, the old mythologies. We need a more intelligent mythology, and one that is global and based on the survival and welfare of the Earth and its inhabitants. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things! Utopian perhaps, but hope springs eternal in the human heart.

Indeed and to deprive anyone of hope is the worst that anyone can do to them. Attempts to deprive of hope are to be seen all around in the world today.

All leaders of men have always been concerned with seeding and fostering hope. Honest leaders don't knowingly seed and foster false hopes at any level, economic or spiritual.

Life without hope is a life unable to dream, and that is desolation.

[MikeNovack]

Indeed and to deprive anyone of hope is the worst that anyone can do to them. Attempts to deprive of hope are to be seen all around in the world today.

All leaders of men always have been concerned with seeding and fostering hope. Honest leaders don't knowingly seed and foster false hopes at any level, economic or spiritual.

Except that last would imply honest leaders do not remain leaders. Because people will not follow those whose message is "there is no way forward except through what is truly dreadful". Of course honest leaders may UNKNOWINGLY seed and foster false hope. They themselves believe in these false hopes.

The sad reality is that there are NO sustainable solutions for ten billion humans on this planet. Not unless we succeed in harnessing fusion, and success with that has stubbornly remained "just twenty years in the future" for MANY decades now (my friends who remained in Physics are not optimistic, tell me will stay "just twenty years in the future" for the foreseeable future).

Of course leaders COULD take the position, the crash is inevitable, enough for the people around the having to try to live through it to deal with it. Why make people around now unhappy if there is nothing constructive to be dome to avert the crash. Simply say all is well and DON'T LOOK AHEAD.

Might I suggest the Japanese animated movie Pom Poko. It's only on the surface about tanukis (and kitsunes) responding to ecological threat. It represents the range of ways we humans respond when faced with existential threat.