For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Don't blame the messengers. Blame the creator who created a world that can no longer handle humans exhaling (if that is the case). Living itself has become a sin. How gloriously wonderful the creator of this world must be (if there even is a creator).Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:15 pm soon exhaling will be a crime against the planet
believe the environmentalist's lies
-Imp
Huh? It's definitely not ethically wrong and only a tiny minority find it morally wrong. Don't confuse having a downside to immorality.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
I wonder if he asked about his use of computers/internet, which he used when asking the question:Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
1) Disposal Issues: Electronic waste contains toxic substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) that can leach into the environment if not properly recycled. 2) Resource Wastage: Valuable materials in e-waste are often not recovered, leading to inefficient use of resources.E-Waste:
1) Internet Usage: Streaming services, cloud computing, and other online activities increase the load on data centers, leading to higher energy consumption and associated emissions. 2) Transportation: The logistics involved in distributing electronic products (from manufacturing to end-users) contribute to transportation-related emissions.Operational Emissions:
No. Stone throwers are generally not self reflective.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 6:05 amI wonder if he asked about his use of computers/internet, which he used when asking the question:Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
Direct Environmental Impacts
Energy Consumption: 1) Electricity Usage: Operating computers, data centers, and network infrastructure requires significant amounts of electricity, often generated from fossil fuels, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. 2) Cooling Requirements: Data centers need extensive cooling systems to maintain optimal temperatures, which further increases energy consumption.
Resource Extraction: 1) Raw Materials: Computers and electronic devices require various metals and minerals (e.g., rare earth elements, gold, silver, copper) that need to be mined, leading to habitat destruction, soil erosion, and water contamination. 2) Water Usage: Mining and manufacturing processes consume large quantities of water, contributing to water scarcity in some regions.
Manufacturing Impacts: 1)Chemical Pollution: The production of electronic components involves hazardous chemicals that can pollute air, water, and soil if not properly managed. 2) Carbon Footprint: Manufacturing processes emit significant amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
1) Disposal Issues: Electronic waste contains toxic substances (e.g., lead, mercury, cadmium) that can leach into the environment if not properly recycled. 2) Resource Wastage: Valuable materials in e-waste are often not recovered, leading to inefficient use of resources.E-Waste:
Indirect Environmental Impacts
Infrastructure Development: 1) Land Use: Construction of data centers, communication networks, and other infrastructure can lead to habitat destruction and land-use changes. 2) Resource Consumption: Building and maintaining this infrastructure requires significant materials and energy.
1) Internet Usage: Streaming services, cloud computing, and other online activities increase the load on data centers, leading to higher energy consumption and associated emissions. 2) Transportation: The logistics involved in distributing electronic products (from manufacturing to end-users) contribute to transportation-related emissions.Operational Emissions:
Supply Chain Impacts: 1) Global Logistics: The international nature of electronic supply chains means that environmental impacts are distributed globally, including emissions from shipping and air transport. 2) Manufacturing Locations: Many electronic devices are manufactured in countries with less stringent environmental regulations, leading to higher pollution levels.
Electromagnetic Interference: The proliferation of wireless devices and networks can cause electromagnetic pollution, potentially affecting wildlife.
The cumulative energy consumption and emissions from the IT sector contribute significantly to global climate change.
Resource Depletion: 1) The extraction and consumption of finite natural resources for electronic production contribute to resource depletion and environmental degradation. 2) Biodiversity Loss: Habitat destruction, pollution, and climate change driven by the IT sector's environmental footprint contribute to the loss of biodiversity.
Of course there is 'a creator' of 'this world'. And, 'that creator' is obviously you adult human beings.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 6:26 pmDon't blame the messengers. Blame the creator who created a world that can no longer handle humans exhaling (if that is the case). Living itself has become a sin. How gloriously wonderful the creator of this world must be (if there even is a creator).Impenitent wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 2:15 pm soon exhaling will be a crime against the planet
believe the environmentalist's lies
-Imp
What is the difference between 'ethically wrong' from 'morally wrong', to you, exactly?LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:11 pmHuh? It's definitely not ethically wrong and only a tiny minority find it morally wrong. Don't confuse having a downside to immorality.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
Unethical is violating a community's ethical standards. Immoral is violating one's own moral codes.Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 7:23 amWhat is the difference between 'ethically wrong' from 'morally wrong', to you, exactly?LuckyR wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 9:11 pmHuh? It's definitely not ethically wrong and only a tiny minority find it morally wrong. Don't confuse having a downside to immorality.Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 12:38 pm Rufus Duits asks when we can justify driving our carbon contributors.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/162/Is ... rs_Immoral
Thank you.
For me it is a violation of my moral code to cheat at a game. But since moral "rightness" is only one variable in the complex matrix which is human decision making, I may conclude that while the quality of not following the rules of a game are: wrong, that the quantity of this violation can in certain circumstances be: miniscule. Being miniscule, there are cases where other considerations besides moral rightness outweigh them and, for example I may let my young daughter beat me at a card game.
So, what, exactly, do you do to 'violate' your own, personal, moral code here?LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 6:48 amFor me it is a violation of my moral code to cheat at a game.
Here 'we' can see another prime example of another way these adult human beings, back in 'the olden days' when this was being written, to use to try to 'justify' the 'wrongness' that they each 'knew' that they were doing.LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 6:48 am But since moral "rightness" is only one variable in the complex matrix which is human decision making, I may conclude that while the quality of not following the rules of a game are: wrong, that the quantity of this violation can in certain circumstances be: miniscule.
So, where is the 'cheating' here, exactly.
I can see in my absence Age has not changed regarding at least one of his core negative beliefs about humans. 'Almost never,' he says. Perhaps he has little experience socially with people. He seems unaware that many people are quite capable of admitting things they did wrong and apologizing, a must in many long term relationships, for example marriages. And who also manage not to justify away their apology and/or imply it was actually virtuous. Nor does he seem aware that there are people who apologize too often or have a tendency to find fault in themselves, even when they are not at fault, but certainly when they are.Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2024 7:43 am Also, what 'we' can see and notice here is another prime example of what was a very common occurrence 'back then'. The adult human beings would just about never provide an example of what they do wrong, and instead would always 'try to justify' everything they do, and like in the prime example here, which could be referred to as 'virtue signalling', they would instead of giving an example/s of the 'wrong' they do, they turn the 'wrong' around completely so much that they try to come across as doing 'it' for good or right purposes and so they try to come across as though they are good people instead.