Philosophy Now Forum

Sorry skip, if you sense a hijack. If not, please ignore this.

No problem. Actually, hijackings are usually fun: I never know where a thread will go.

I just wondered whether anyone would be interested in pursuing a reduced footprint thread.

Understanding the system you are in

Spheres, I'd rather not break posts into pieces considered out of context. It's hard to follo

SpheresOfBalance wrote:All humans are dumb creatures, at least where it counts. They almost always simply ask themselves if they "can" do something, often because it pays them immediate power and riches. They never ask if they "should" do something, because most often to deny doing many things, would cost them immediate power and riches! The human animal is much a fool, that can't see life for the self! As such, it's doomed itself! Why do you think economies are crumbling? I know the answer! The truth is starting to ring out loud.

The current status quo is definitely not sustainable! And most are far too selfish to tighten up their belts a notch or two.

I am glad you're taking some practical steps. Reducing waste is a huge issue. Watch out for badgering, though. I find that it makes people go the other way. I do a little better with a manipulative approach to raising environmental awareness. Ultimately, if you don't have authority, getting people to change their behaviour is very hard.

I maintain that the cancer notion is almost as inappropriate as a metaphor as it is as a literal idea. Yes, humans are the current dominant species and we've overbred and we overconsume. This happens in nature and it's happening to us. Shouldn't we be above such mindless behaviour if we are an intelligent species? You'd think so, but the results are in, and it turns out the answer is "no". In effect, we are behaving like any other highly dominant animal.

Humans only stopped living in the wild 10,000 years ago and we are still obviously formative, having seemingly achieved more power than wisdom. In nature, might is right. Neither humanity nor nature is run by the wise, but by alphas. The wise and temperate usually seem to be scavengers.

The bottom line is: seven billion people, the highest biomoass of large animals in the Earth's history. There is more human flesh (with energy-hungry brains) on Earth than there was dinosaur flesh during their dominant era. So, whatever we do, carnage is inevitable. This is all about damage control - slowing the changes. Ultimately the Earth can't sustain so many large mammals in the long term, especially those with our resource extraction capabilities (and a small gaggle of people in power churning through resources fast as they shore up their power bases like squirrels gathering nuts for the winter). Despite the corruption, greed and waste, we were always going to run into this problem because power trumps wisdom. So far.

Still, I've said it before and will say it again, if humanity can divert just one killer asteroid then we'll have earned our keep. More than one would be a bonus. In the meantime, if we consider what really matters, then the answer would seem to be harm minimisation.

It'll probably all turn out for the best, Greta, because what we're fretting about is a storm in a teacup to a biosphere which always manages to find its own way forward. Either homo sapiens will survive the Anthropocene or he won't but nature won't give a rat's arse one way or the other.

Power.

HaHaHa wrote:Power.

Who has it? The elephant, or the mouse influencing the elephant to move?

Dalek Prime wrote:

HaHaHa wrote:Power.

Who has it? The elephant, or the mouse influencing the elephant to move?

In that example I would say both although there would be different variances of course.

HaHaHa wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

HaHaHa wrote:Power.

Who has it? The elephant, or the mouse influencing the elephant to move?

In that example I would say both although there would be different variances of course.

Influence over the powerful is what I was referring to.

Reminds me of the story of the stone mason, who wishes to be better and better, more and more powerful, until he comes full circle, wishing to be a stone mason again.

Dalek Prime:
Influence over the powerful is what I was referring to. Reminds me of the story of the stone mason, who wishes to be better and better, more and more powerful, until he comes full circle, wishing to be himself again.

Hmm..sounds like a terrible story with a moral undertone or metanarrative attached. I don't really care for quaint stories like that myself. Sounds like a story boring simpletons would embrace.

HaHaHa wrote:

Dalek Prime:
Influence over the powerful is what I was referring to. Reminds me of the story of the stone mason, who wishes to be better and better, more and more powerful, until he comes full circle, wishing to be himself again.

Hmm..sounds like a terrible story with a moral undertone or metanarrative attached. I don't really care for quaint stories like that myself. Sounds like a story boring simpletons would embrace.

It's an l ancient Chinese story displaying wisdom, child.

http://www.refinethemind.com/the-stonec ... folk-tale/

DalekPrime:

It's an l ancient Chinese story displaying wisdom, child.

http://www.refinethemind.com/the-stonec ... folk-tale/

I should care about the thoughts of a 2000 year old dead Chinese individual because.....?

HaHaHa wrote:

DalekPrime:

It's an l ancient Chinese story displaying wisdom, child.

http://www.refinethemind.com/the-stonec ... folk-tale/

I should care about the thoughts of a 2000 year old dead Chinese individual because.....?

Okay, don't then. I honestly don't care if you want to remain an ignoramus.

Dalek Prime wrote:

HaHaHa wrote:

DalekPrime:

It's an l ancient Chinese story displaying wisdom, child.

http://www.refinethemind.com/the-stonec ... folk-tale/

I should care about the thoughts of a 2000 year old dead Chinese individual because.....?

Okay, don't then. I honestly don't care if you want to remain an ignoramus.

You know, for an individual that doesn't care about anything there seems to be a lot of things that you care about.

I care about almost everything in existence, exactly because im an antinatalist. And you'd know that if you really knew anything about it, besides a bit on another philosophy forum.

But I'm not going to martyr myself over existence either. Not my problem, especially once I'm gone.

Dalek Prime wrote:I care about almost everything in existence, exactly because im an antinatalist. And you'd know that if you really knew anything about it, besides a bit on another philosophy forum.

But I'm not going to martyr myself over existence either. Not my problem, especially once I'm gone.

One moment you don't care and now you do care. You're confusing.

You seem to be fascinated upon exiting out of this world. How very interesting.