Philosophy Now Forum

Various people, in disparate regions and eras, have described and named the same [only viable] type of social interaction. That's all I was trying to say, really: that this isn't revolutionary. And that I don't consider myself a candidate for 101 level instruction in the subject. Which is why I haven't followed every offered link. I did try to read the article in humungous font. Sorry I didn't get far before the eyes and patience gave out.

It doesn't matter, anyway, whether I'm up to speed on the intricacies of teaching ethics in modern industrial states: I retired from the field of battle years ago. (In disorder and defeat.)

Skip wrote:... on the intricacies of teaching ethics... I retired from the field of battle years ago. (In disorder and defeat.)

The new generation, born, say, in 2002, if they come from privileged homes, are taking up where you and I - and their parents - are leaving off. They are so sharp, so way ahead in skills, so up-to-speed in so many areas - partly due to the superiority of their schooling, and partly due to the Information Age savvy of their loving parents, Some of them, it seems to me, will be quite ready to assume leadership positions in every profession, in government, in the field of music, athletics, science, etc. So keep hope alive ! Change is occurring rapidly these days. Each generation has a head start, due to the accumulated wisdom of previous generations. A few will make the most of it, and will shine. Now they have what you call Ethics 101 to guide them. And the sharpest minds will know where to find it.

Had they but world enough, and time...
It would be lovely to believe.

From 1970 to 2020 we have been, and will be, going through a transition, from the Industrial Age - of which the factory is the symbol - to the Information Age.

Alvin & Heidi Toffler wrote a booklet describing the process; they entitled it CREATING A NEW CIVILIZATION (Atlanta, Turner Publishing, Inc., 1995). They speak of it as going from the Second Wave to the Third Wave. The First Wave was the Agricultural Age. The main profession was: farmer. Mass-production characterized the Second Wave. Now, the authors explain, we are transitioning to a new economy, a knowledge-economy. http://www.amazon.com/Creating-New-Civi ... 0114645&sr

They write, on p. 42, "While land, labor, raw materials and capital were the main factors of production in the Second Wave economy of the past, knowledge -- broadly defined here to include data, information, images, symbols, culture, ideology, and values -- is now the central resource of the Third Wave economy." This, they claim, revolutionizes everything.

We know there is lots of dislocation going on - the unemployment situation is a human tragedy. The suffering is similar to when farmers were being attracted to city work, leaving the land to make "a living" with sheer muscle power in some factory. Today, low-skilled workers are out on the street, often homeless, because there just are no jobs! Robots and cheap foreign labor replaces Americans willing to work hard. Instead of saying we are heading for a breakdown, say we are 'in transition' to a (knowledge-based) re-invented politics, government, economics - one in which customization, flexibility, decentralization, globalization prevails, and businesses will operate like Amazon, Google, and Apple do.

Comments?

@ prof

Your OP is very vague in defining moral, therefore noone can ever define what is vaguely described. Nor does OP suggest that you have a remotely close understanding of the simple concept of moral, maybe you should look it up, instead of pulling things straight out of the ass.

There is nothing at all wrong with the theory, the definition, the framework, the equation, the vision or the links.

I used to be an admirer of Toffler - have read and enjoyed both books. I think the Third Wave has already had its high tide and begun to recede. The really problem, though, is that all of those ideas and expectations; all of the speculation and projection, is based on a linear history that starts at A and continues right on through the alphabet without skipping any letters. It doesn't take into account major breaks in the human narrative: extinction, climatic upheaval and cataclysmic war. These are not "transitions" any more than the great depression was "market adjustment"; these are events that alter the very conditions of life on Earth.

I believe there is such a major discontinuity on the near horizon - which means the mice and men can pretty much forget about any plans, however well-laid.

Skip wrote:There is nothing at all wrong with the theory, the definition, the framework, the equation, the vision or the links.

Thank you, Skip.

I appreciate that at least you took a look at it ...before your eyes gave out. We need further work, though, on why and how your patience ran out.

Skip wrote:I believe there is such a major discontinuity on the near horizon - which means the mice and men can pretty much forget about any plans, however well-laid.

You do realize, don't you, that this is a "self-fulfilling hypothesis"? Your belief contributes to making it happen. Do we want another cataclysmic event on the scale of The Great Depression? And make note of the fact that Americans did survive that - not to dismiss the high cost in human misery that was entailed. My own father was one of the victims of that failure in policy: he really struggled to make a living. Even though he was highly skilled as an accountant, no corporations or businesses were hiring.

When we don't learn from history it seems we are likely to repeat mistakes.
So let us learn. As Gandhi is reputed to have said, "Live each day as if it is your last; and learn each day as if you were going to live forever !"

prof wrote: We need further work, though, on why and how your patience ran out.

Because I'm not that new to the subject, theories or discussions thereof. And it's no more use making the print tiny than making it huge... fun to play with, though, as long as you don't go all Wiltrack on it.

Skip wrote:Your belief contributes to making it happen.

Blame your cancer on the pathologist for signing the lab report?
No, this isn't my fault. I saw in 1976, when it could have been averted, that the climate change situation was hopeless. World leaders had been warned, had the resources to study the problem and the opportunity to do something about it, and they pissed it away in petty squabbles. The human population explosion was also obvious back then, when it could have been halted at 6 billion. If the threat of mass extinction isn't sufficient motivation get their act together, they're just never going to. I had no influence then; have none now. Nevertheless, I continued to try for three more decades.

Do we want another cataclysmic event on the scale of The Great Depression?

I was unclear. The depression analogy was merely an example of mislabelling. It was a trivial event in world history, but too large an event in economics to dismiss as an adjustment, just as the impending break is too large to call a transition.
The cataclysmic events foreshadowed by Hurricane Sandy et al are on a whole different scale. We're talking global upheaval: borders, economies, empires, eco-systems collapsing; coastal areas submerged; billions of people dead of thirst, starvation, flood, wind, mudslide, fire; refugees migrating by the millions, fighting over every scrap of arable land, every depleted river, every scrawny shade tree. We're currently killing off other species at the rate of 27,000 per year and sharply rising, while we chop down and burn the entire planet's green lungs.

And make note of the fact that Americans did survive that .... failure in policy...

...which is back in charge, not merely unchanged but vastly bigger, more invincible and crazier.

When we don't learn from history it seems we are likely to repeat mistakes.

And when we do learn from history? When do we learn from history?
There have always been some individual who could see what was wrong and which path ought not to be taken, and every one of them was branded An Enemy of the People * - though a few were rehabilitated, even lionized [posthumously, of course] by the dynasty that benefited from the fall of the one that refused to listen.
We are an insane species, and we shall swarm right off that cliff together.

(*Ibsen, 1882)

prof wrote:When we don't learn from history it seems we are likely to repeat mistakes.
So let us learn. As Gandhi is reputed to have said, "Live each day as if it is your last; and learn each day as if you were going to live forever !"

Most cosy chatters will sit all day long and crack off words of wisdom, which is actually only parroting things they don't really know how to put into perspective.

It becomes quite obvious when cosy chatters can't solve anything, and think a cosy chat can lead to wisdom, it's totally impossible to have a bunch of glaringly ignorent people to produce anything useful!

People should instead of doing their cosy chat, spend time on studying science.

Science shall save our asses... much like Jesus did.

glaringly ignorent people

should engage in hostile chat, not cozy.
Me, I think I'll go study Astronomy. Useless, but makes prettier computer renditions than Chemistry.

Skip wrote:Science shall save our asses... much like Jesus did.

glaringly ignorent people

should engage in hostile chat, not cozy.
Me, I think I'll go study Astronomy. Useless, but makes prettier computer renditions than Chemistry.

GPS relies heavily on astronomy.

In coming decades we are set to mine the planets.

There are lots more, you are just ignorent about the wonders.

Hex

You are right about the vagueness in the o.p. We need a systematic approach to ethics. That is why I now recommend this essay, entitled BASIC ETHICS - http://tinyurl.com/mfcgzfz


It won't satisfy the negative critics who are always looking for trouble, but it may appeal to you since, like me, you want to see a better, more rigorous, ethical theory emerge. That is why you frequent Ethics and Morality forums; it is because you care. You want to live in a more ethical world, and you are aware that if a good theory ever filters into the consciousness of key leaders, and opinion-makers, the results can only be beneficial.


.

prof

We already have very elaborate morals and ethics, just look them up, and we should discuss the aspects you think need changed.

No need in inventing the wheel all over.

HexHammer wrote:prof

We already have very elaborate morals and ethics, just look them up, and we should discuss the aspects you think need changed.

No need in inventing the wheel all over.

You write: "We already have very elaborate morals and ethics" We do??

And you find that they - as does BASIC ETHICS - systematically address the problems of evil conduct, and they tell how to overcome it with some exactitude as to how to proceed?

Where do I look them up?!

I certainly do not want to "reinvent a wheel" that is working so well.

You know the concept of "law", it will rely upon of thousands of years of knowledge of how humans treat each other, mostly how we in bad ways treat each other, and it will describe how sever we must punish those bad people, depending of how bad they treat each other.

It ranges between a fine paid in money, to prison or even deathpenalty.

OM*G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How can you miss such parts? Have you been living in a cave all life? Or just been shelterd by your parents?