Philosophy Now Forum

Wendy Lynne Lee says consumerism really is the end of the world.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/Dewey_and_Climate_Denial_Squared

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:06 pm Wendy Lynne Lee says consumerism really is the end of the world.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/De ... al_Squared

Rather surprised about this article, written by a Professor of philosophy.
First of all, it takes a totally black or white view of denial or not denial. Every scientist will agree that the climate is a complex system. Doubt is reasonable, even though cimate models are getting better and better and the scientific results now seem to indicate that global warming caused by mankind is a fact. But for the levels, noone knows for certain.
Secondly, no scientific results are presented, facts are presented as something ”we” know.
Thirdly, the picture is presented as ”capitalism vs care for nature” in a very stereotype way,
Fourth, try to buy a can of tuna meat from the store where not ”dolphin safe” is indicated. The market do want to sell, and if people demands things the market will adapt. Already, the meat department in the stores are displaying less red meat and vegetarian alternatives are on display.
It seems as if there is an aestethic value in presenting the global warming as a ”now we must change our lifestyle” thing, appealing to anywheres like university professors but hell to white and blue collar somewheres.

Why not recognize that there is a problem and act accordingly? Eating less meat, driving a more environmentally sound car and reduce long flights is not ”change lifestyle”. And of course, countries like china must be taken into account.

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:21 pm

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Sun Dec 22, 2019 1:06 pm Wendy Lynne Lee says consumerism really is the end of the world.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/135/De ... al_Squared

Rather surprised about this article, written by a Professor of philosophy.
First of all, it takes a totally black or white view of denial or not denial. Every scientist will agree that the climate is a complex system. Doubt is reasonable, even though cimate models are getting better and better and the scientific results now seem to indicate that global warming caused by mankind is a fact. But for the levels, noone knows for certain.
Secondly, no scientific results are presented, facts are presented as something ”we” know.
Thirdly, the picture is presented as ”capitalism vs care for nature” in a very stereotype way,
Fourth, try to buy a can of tuna meat from the store where not ”dolphin safe” is indicated. The market do want to sell, and if people demands things the market will adapt. Already, the meat department in the stores are displaying less red meat and vegetarian alternatives are on display.
It seems as if there is an aestethic value in presenting the global warming as a ”now we must change our lifestyle” thing, appealing to anywheres like university professors but hell to white and blue collar somewheres.

Why not recognize that there is a problem and act accordingly? Eating less meat, driving a more environmentally sound car and reduce long flights is not ”change lifestyle”. And of course, countries like china must be taken into account.

A philosopher with a sincere love of wisdom will want to objectively understand what motivates Plato's Beast.

From Simone Weil's Gravity and Grace:

The Great Beast [society, the collective] is the only object of idolatry, the only ersatz of God, the only imitation of something which is infinitely far from me and which is I myself.

It is impossible for me to take myself as an end or, in consequence, my fellow man as an end, since he is my fellow. Nor can I take a material thing, because matter is still less capable of having finality conferred upon it than human beings are.

Only one thing can be taken as an end, for in relation to the human person it possesses a kind of transcendence: this is the collective.

Simone Weil gets the term "Great Beast" from Plato. Specifically, this passage from Book VI of his Republic (here Plato critiques those who are "wise" through their study of society):

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

If society is a creature of reaction as Plato describes there is simply no reason for it to change its attitudes other than from immediate pragmtic awreness.. If you believe society can change from any sort of conscious decision going against the grain as it pertains to climate change, what IYO is the source of motivation?

That beast seems to be a quite fuzzy construction. ”The collective”. Like, all the guys in the world?

Most capitalist climate change deniers, traditional Greens (I call them "conservative Greens") and left-wingers (especially those jumping on the climate change bandwagon) agree that continuing economic growth in a capitalist system is incompatible with effectively tackling climate change.
I see no soon-enough prospect of people around the world voting for radical change in the global economic system - especially where it matters (China, India, USA etc). I think it's time for Greens to give up on that as their main focus.
The article is right to criticise capitalist climate change deniers but it does not necessarily follow that regulated capitalism and economic growth will inevitably lead to runaway climate change.
Wealth created by economic growth has enabled people in richer countries to clean up their local environments.
Global warming is a HUGE problem but it could be solved with plentiful cheap-enough on-demand carbon neutral energy. This includes renewables but critically it means embracing nuclear. We need to reduce costs through modular production line manufacturing and move to efficient molten salt reactors. Substitution and recycling of materials so we can achieve sustainability becomes possible with plentiful energy and sufficient wealth.
New agricultural technologies such as multi-story hydroponics offer the prospect of five-fold increase in food production. This could enable massive rewilding with perhaps half of current agricultural land turned back to nature to preserve biodiversity.
Embracing high tech and wealth creation are a far cry from conservative Green thinking but it's time to change the record. Being radical means being willing to change your opinion and support a path that at least has a chance.

Dear Editor: Throughout the many Letters to the Editor and answers to the Question of the Month I have submitted, I’ve hardly tried to veil my hesitation when it comes to (if not outright contempt for (Capitalism. So you can only imagine how cranked I got reading Wendy Lynne Lee’s “Dewey and Climate Denial²” (issue 135). Not only did it allow me to indulge in a shameless war rally of confirmation bias; but, via aesthetics, it expanded my process by approaching it from an angle that I never thought about before. Therefore, all I can do is bounce off of Lee’s point and put in the 10 cents I have managed to scrape up throughout my engagement with it.

As Lee suggests, it is crazy-scary how immersed people seem to be in corporate/Capitalist values. The high priests of it preach about “thinking outside of the box”. But as hip as that may sound, it seems the one box they can’t seem to think outside of is producer/consumer Capitalism. And what has resulted is us reduced to our value as producer/consumers. And we see this all over media, especially in TV ads. They try to get us right. But all that actually results is us as go-getters who live purely to accumulate or budding entrepreneurs who are perfectly willing to devote our point A to point B to a Calvinistic accumulation of wealth. That is, of course, when a lot of people are not out to “get ahead” but, rather, just want to go to work, come home, and have a life. And if it’s not that, it’s people driving in the latest update of a vehicle in some beautiful panorama with music that suggests that we are living in a golden age thanks to producer/consumer Capitalism. On top of that, you get ads pimping services that can get you out the debt the other advertisements got you into in the first place. It’s as if to say that it doesn’t matter what consequences the market creates for you, the market can always, for a small fee, come up with a solution.

It’s become a kind of religion even. As I like to joke: It use to be pray hard and follow these principles and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven; now it’s work hard and follow these principles and you too might enter the kingdom of success.