RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:42 pm
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 am
Fundamentally however, we remain subject to the overall principle, that we must be right to reality to survive.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:31 pmIf that means what we understand about reality must be right and we have to live in conformance to that understanding, that is absolutely correct. Almost every human problem can be put down to failing or refusing to discover the nature of reality or living in defiance of that nature.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 amI can confirm the existence of a mechanism in the relation between the organism and reality, but what it means should have been the work of civilisations and centuries to discover and define. Instead, the Church established an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy has papered over the cracks, such that now - what should rationally be only right and natural is potentially quite dangerous. In Enemies of an Open Society, Karl Popper warns recognising science as truth would require 'making all our representations conform' to science as truth; science would be dictatorial, and that's something I specifically defend against ...
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmI totally agree up to here. After this you've mixed the necessity of individual autonomy with some collective goals, which are contradictory:
No. I've described the concept of 'right' I've employed to justify developing magma energy to combat climate change. Climate change is a global threat, and requires collective action to address it. In this context, I believe 'it's right because it's true' is justified. I do not think it justified as a basis to address "every human problem" - and I'm trying to explain why.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm
... by suggesting science as the authoritative basis for cooperation in a global good; developing magma energy to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc. In this way we can harness the functional truth value of science insofar as is necessary to survival, without seeking to re-organise society with reference to scientific principles. Approached globally, from the supply side, based on limitless clean energy, doing what's necessary to sustainability, we can harness the functional truth value of science and retain our irrational ideological identities and positions, and so 'get there from here.'
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmYou've simply replaced, "science," as the basis for authority with some notion of, "global good," as the basis for authority. Who defines what is the, "global good?" Who is, "we," and what do you intend to do with those who do not agree and choose not to cooperate to fulfill your personal vision of what is right for the world? I totally disagree with what you think is the correct way to run the world. For example: carbon sequestration, recycling, limitless clean energy, and sustainability are all crackpot ideas hatched by environmental totalitarians which if implemented would produce massive worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval. Why would you want that?
In Oct/Nov the UK is hosting COP 26, and it's bodies like that make decisions. It's my fondest hope that before then, I can raise the question of transcending limits to resources - by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, because I believe it's scientifically and technologically possible, and that more energy - not less, is necessary to a sustainable future. Wind and solar cannot provide more energy. But magma energy can meet and exceed global energy demand; and massively more energy is the way to go. Backing down in face of the climate challenge - a policy strategy of
have less and pay more, tax this and stop that will send us into a spiral of entropic decline, and we will surely fail to secure the future. Only if we have limitless amounts of clean energy to spend, can we balance prosperity and sustainability. If I can raise that idea, I'll have done my duty - and they are the legitimate authorities, the powers that be, does it matter who "they" are? Or does it matter what's true?
The only thing you have described is some environmentalist ideological view of how things are supposed to be and have called that right. No one is born into this world to save humanity or world society.
To even ASSUME that ANY one was born like that is absolute nonsense, but then to ASSUME that ANY one even thinks this way is even more absurd and nonsensical.
WHY do you ASSUME such things "rcsaunders"?
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Nonsense like, "climate change is a global threat," is an attempt to scare the gullible into supporting some social/political agenda. Climate always changes, and human beings adapt.
Is this what you use to 'try to' "justify" your Wrong, greedy and selfish behaviors?
Although your last sentence is obviously irrefutably True, why you are saying this is yet to be fully understood. Is it an attempt to scare the gullible into supporting some social/political agenda, like, for example, "capitalism"? Are you 'trying to' say, "keep polluting the environment by continually using and depleting our one and only home's limited supply of natural resources in order to keep supporting your greedy and selfish ways, which keeps creating and producing more money, which keeps the social and political agenda of "capitalism" alive and well?
If no, then WHY are stating the things you are here?
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
I'm sorry if you would rather stamp your foot and complain that you don't like climate to change. It's going to change, no matter what anyone does.
Are you REALLY this uninformed?
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, is even suggesting, let alone saying, that 'the climate' could stop changing.
What they are meaning is that if 'you', human beings, CHANGED the way you are living, in the days when this is being written, from the greedy, money hungry, selfish way that 'you' are ALL living now, then the climate will NOT CHANGE, as much as it is, in the direction it is going.
The incorrectly worded phrase, 'climate change', means and refers to the 'change' that 'you', human beings, are doing to the 'climate'.
If you want to dispute that ALL or ANY human behavior does not effect the climate someway, then do that. But what you are 'trying to' argue against could NEVER be successfully argued against.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Personally I'm very disappointed that all promised, "global warming," has not happened and it's been promised now for over 30 years.
How do you KNOW that 'global warming' has not happened? And, who "promised" what, exactly?
If ANY wants to prove, or disprove, that the temperature has been getting warmer, globally, then all ANY one has to do is just obtain the temperature records from around the globe, from when they were started.
Let us LOOK AT them, and THEN DISCUSS.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
There are no, "legitimate," authorities and all those who claim to be are mostly petty tyrants who just want to control others.
If any one LOOKS AT your writings here "rcsaunders", one can clearly see that 'you' are 'trying to' be "the authority" by TELLING us WHAT IS TRUE.
What can be seen is that 'you', subconsciously, are claiming to be "the authority" here, which makes 'you' mostly a 'petty tyrant, just wanting to control us'.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Now if you believe that's right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
If I am not mistaken it is 'you', "rcsaunders", who claims there are no 'rights'. Either way, people are certainly NOT "entitled" to their opinion anyway. Contrary to popular belief, people are CERTAINLY NOT entitled to some of their opinions.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Mine is that no human being is born with an unearned obligation to anyone else and no one has, "duty," to do anything they didn't willingly sign-up for. One's only responsibility in life is to use their own mind to learn all the can, to think as well as the can, to work and produce as much of value as they can and to be the best human being they can possibly be, and to live a fully rewarding and enjoyable life.
Well 'you', "rcsaunders", are CERTAINLY NOT fulfilling your ONLY "responsibility in life".
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
Such individuals are the only one's in this world who are of any value to themselves, or anyone else, because they are the only one's living in conformance with the requirements of the nature of reality.
LOL "the nature of reality".
This certainly sounds like one actually BELIEVES that they are 'the authority' here, and are 'trying to' TELL "others" how to live their lives.
A lot of 'petty tyranny' and 'controlling', from 'you', appears to be going on here.