I understand what you are proposing. The feasibility of it has yet to be determined, clearly you have looked into it far more than I have so I cannot gainsay any of your statements, I simply lack the information required to do so. My position is simple: Humanity, as a species, is not something I consider worth saving in it's current state. Feasibility doesn't play into it.

The coronavirus likely wants to carry on in perpetuity as well. Doesn't mean it should.

No! As I said earlier, we have to act in anticipation of the threat. Climate change will disrupt the economy - undermining our ability to address it. I can show that revolutions in energy production have preceded every great leap forward for human civilization. Yet rather than leap forward, the prevailing plan seems to be to back down - tax this, stop that, pay more, have less. It will not work. — counterpunch

The fatal flaw in all prognostication is the assumption you know what the critical issues (to be confronted) will be. If you look back into history, you will see that this rarely (if ever) happens, and when it does, it's by mere chance. What happened to the ice age predicted in the 70's or any of the other absurd predictions that have been made in the last 50 years?

This is why all the sages of the past, school the people to concentrate efforts on the present and let the future take care of itself.

I am science oriented, and in those terms - it follows from the second law of thermodynamics that we need more energy, not less. To maintain any ordered state requires the expenditure of energy. The world could develop that energy from magma - and; do you not see the advantage of attacking the problem from the supply side - it would not be necessary to stop this, tax that, pay more and have less - to address climate change. All the social, political and economic turmoil a 'limits to resources' green approach implies can be sidestepped; because in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and the technology exists to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We could be much wealthier in future - and free from guilt by design. — counterpunch

Like I've mentioned previously, energy is the least of our worries. There is unlimited energy available. It's just a matter of reducing the cost which is what capitalism does better than anything else.

And wealth is one thing, but man will never be guilt-free. When yo think about it, guilt might be the only thing there is more of in this world than energy!

My position is simple: Humanity, as a species, is not something I consider worth saving in it's current state. — Book273

Okay but you realise I suppose my argument suggests we come to this impasse as the consequence of a mistake - 400 years ago, in our relationship to science. The world would have been very different if not for this error, and you would be different too. It's very difficult to reconstruct 400 years of alternate history, but had science been welcomed and pursued as the means to establish valid knowledge of Creation, and had been imbued with divine/moral authority, it seems likely technology would have been developed and applied in accord with an emerging scientific understanding of reality while at the same time, science were woven into the fabric of politics and economics over centuries; ideas from which people draw their identities, purposes and values. Had that been so, you wouldn't be the misanthropic doom monkey you are - because of the "current state" the world is in! It shouldn't have been. That's the point.

The fatal flaw in all prognostication is the assumption you know what the critical issues (to be confronted) will be. If you look back into history, you will see that this rarely (if ever) happens, and when it does, it's by mere chance. What happened to the ice age predicted in the 70's or any of the other absurd predictions that have been made in the last 50 years? — synthesis

It's a peculiarity of philosophy, I suspect, accustomed to appeal to the dustiest tome, to fail to recognise that science moves forward as a body of knowledge from a flurry of hypotheses toward more certain knowledge over time - such that "absurd predictions" later disproven as we falsify possibilities to zero in on knowledge, is exactly what we should expect to see.

This is why all the sages of the past, school the people to concentrate efforts on the present and let the future take care of itself. — synthesis

Wisdom is only wisdom until it becomes common sense.

Like I've mentioned previously, energy is the least of our worries. There is unlimited energy available. It's just a matter of reducing the cost which is what capitalism does better than anything else. And wealth is one thing, but man will never be guilt-free. When yo think about it, guilt might be the only thing there is more of in this world than energy! — synthesis

There is unlimited energy, but we do not have unlimited energy available for use yet. It needs to be developed, and there are balances of interests in doing so. I seek to show that it is technologically possible and philosophically correct, as a basis to humbly suggest the minimal necessary implication might be politically possible. Currently, we are being forced down a narrowing corridor by the climate and ecological crisis, but more energy would give us more time, and more choice going forward - including more discretion about how we ultimately transition.

I don't see current plans adding up. For example, from 2030 the UK intends to add the energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. Not all at once, obviously - there aren't enough charging points! But what if instead, efforts were focused on attacking the issue from the supply side by developing magma energy and using that to extract carbon from the atmosphere? It would be possible to continue driving cars longer, so decoupling infrastructure costs from climate ambitions, protecting economies overly reliant on fossil fuel revenues and giving them time to diversify, and so addressing the threat without guilting people into poverty.

It's a peculiarity of philosophy, I suspect, accustomed to appeal to the dustiest tome, to fail to recognize that science moves forward as a body of knowledge from a flurry of hypotheses toward more certain knowledge over time - such that "absurd predictions" later disproven as we falsify possibilities to zero in on knowledge, is exactly what we should expect to see. — counterpunch

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever).

The issue is that the truth of the matter cannot be known, so the educated come up with all their theories, hypotheses (and even "proofs") that serve society well until they have worn-out their welcome (as well as their ability to reproduce capital) and off to the dustbin they are consigned (just in time to be replaced with the newer, more improved version).

cp, I am not anti-science, I simply understand it's limitations. And I don't disagree with a great deal of what you are saying (except your sense of urgency). People have always believe that the sky was falling (and maybe it is this time) but it's never been the case, so if their might be a worse wager than betting against the FED over the past 30 years, yours' might be it.

Although Science does move, I believe a more accurate GPS might demonstrate that the movement is lateral. It (Science) simply goes from one absurd position to the next. The difference is the former has fallen from grace whereas the later is now all the rage (a process that can go on forever). — synthesis

What the hell is wrong with you?

I am assuming that is a rhetorical question? :)

You need to take a step back and see this in its entirety. You seem overly preoccupied with saving everybody while failing to appreciate the transient nature of all things knowable.

the "current state" the world is in! It shouldn't have been. — counterpunch

Again, I see what is. We are not worth saving, period. If things had been different...blah, blah, blah, pointless discussion. If I weren't me and if we weren't us has no value, we are what we are, and I don't think we are worth saving.

Your approach suggests that we are somehow "all wrong" due to the influence of the church, however, I suggest that far before the church intervened in anything, we were already "wrong". Welcome to humanity, we kinda suck.

I am assuming that is a rhetorical question? :) You need to take a step back and see this in its entirety. You seem overly preoccupied with saving everybody while failing to appreciate the transient nature of all things knowable. — synthesis

Synthesis, With all due respect further discussion is pointless. You're wrong and refuse to be corrected. It's not possible to establish any rational standard with you. Everything just falls through the big hole in the net. No truth - no point!

Again, I see what is. We are not worth saving, period. If things had been different...blah, blah, blah, pointless discussion. If I weren't me and if we weren't us has no value, we are what we are, and I don't think we are worth saving.

Your approach suggests that we are somehow "all wrong" due to the influence of the church, however, I suggest that far before the church intervened in anything, we were already "wrong". Welcome to humanity, we kinda suck. — Book273

I accept we are who we are. I've said many times we have to get there from here. In scientific terms, the molten interior of the earth contains massive base load heat energy, in places - within easy reach of drilling technology, that we could exploit on a monolithic scale to completely change the existential equation. Harnessing massive amounts of energy is the single most scientifically fundamental thing we could do, necessary to any kind of sustainable future worth having. I do not seek to convince you that existence is worthwhile; only that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.

Synthesis, With all due respect further discussion is pointless. — counterpunch

The interesting thing about you is that you really believe that you'll be able to change somebody else's mind. This is why I called you a true believer. True believers think they know the truth and it is their job to inform the rest of the world.

Look, I understand what you are saying, but I choose to believe something else. That's all. Don't take it so hard. What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out! :)

Relax, have a beer and regal in the idea that you are free!

Do people ever choose to believe anything? We're born ignorant, gullible and exposed to culture that as children, we absorb uncritically. We can challenge those received beliefs, or not! It's easier not to. I have. I'm a philosopher. And you are saying to me, on a philosophy forum: "Don't challenge your received beliefs." Then what is philosophy?

I'm not a believer in the sense that I believe in deliberate ignorance of obvious questions. I'm a believer in the sense that I've questioned my beliefs to destruction, over and over until what I'm left with is the most rightful view I'm able to form. I have my limitations, but it seems to me we made a mistake in our relationship to science, and the key to the future is the flip side of that error - and it matters that those two things can be explained in the same terms. I believe that.

Were you not on a philosophy forum, I could gladly let it go at:

I understand what you are saying, but I choose to believe something else. — synthesis

I don't care what you personally choose to believe. I do not accost people in the street to force my philosophical views upon them. I appeal to reason, on a philosophy forum, and you say abandon reason? I have dealt with relativist, subjectivist, sceptical and nihilistic philosophies elsewhere. In general, for philosophical purposes - I find them misconceived justifications of a mistaken relationship to science, starting with Descartes unreasonable scepticism in search of an unreasonable certainty.

What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out! — synthesis

I've thought about it, and these are my thoughts. More than that I cannot say. I can explain my reasons for believing what I believe, and my philosophy points to something external to me. My thoughts are either interesting to others, or they're not - but don't imagine they are a hair shirt to me. I'm hopeful in face of it all because, from what I find I must accept, it's possible to deduce a strong rationale for a clear plan of action to secure a prosperous sustainable future, consistent with maintaining freedom! Hurray!

That's me regaling! This is me off for a beer!

What could be worse than having the pressure of having the rest of humanity believe that you were the one who figured it out!
— synthesis

I've thought about it, and these are my thoughts. More than that I cannot say. I can explain my reasons for believing what I believe, and my philosophy points to something external to me. My thoughts are either interesting to others, or they're not - but don't imagine they are a hair shirt to me. I'm hopeful in face of it all because, from what I find I must accept, it's possible to deduce a strong rationale for a clear plan of action to secure a prosperous sustainable future, consistent with maintaining freedom! Hurray! — counterpunch

The reason I enjoy conversing with you is that believe in yourself 100%! This is extremely rare and I am not sure I've met another in this forum who is like this. Just the same, that doesn't mean that I have to buy into your reality (even though you think it is airtight).

The premise that you are actually living your beliefs (and I agree with many of them) is wonderful. You should feel good and I hope you enjoyed that beer. I don't really expect anybody to understand my point of view. I am not here to change the world, I am here only to pass the time while enjoying conversation with folks that still know how to think. That's all.

Just the same, that doesn't mean that I have to buy into your reality (even though you think it is airtight). — synthesis

I do not agree with your assessment of the state and nature of knowledge. Science has really come together since the advent of the microchip; partly due to computers for communication, and complex calculation, but also all kinds of electronic equipment and sensors, such that now, science constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - the 'truth value' of which is manifest, and should be obvious.

Technology based on scientific principles - works within a causal reality, and what is more the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. That's the functional 'truth value' of a scientific understanding of reality, that we can claim to the benefit of human affairs, starting by harnessing massive clean energy from magma, to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle etc. We make 'truth' manifest through our actions and reap the functional rewards.

Magma energy is the right thing; occurring as it does at the nexus of basic scientific facts about energy, and sustainability as a universal, near objective moral imperative. Physics dictates that massive clean energy is necessary to any sustainable future worth living in, and magma energy offers the greatest benefit at the least cost, with least disruption to the status quo.

Recognising the truth value of science provides the rationale to apply technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality, and so - you see why I am forced to dismiss your subjectivist, relativist, sceptical, nihilistic - rejection of truth and/or morality. It's not that I care particularly what you choose to believe, but that my approach to sustainability is based on the existence of an objective reality - of which we are reliably able to establish valid knowledge.

I do not agree with your assessment of the state and nature of knowledge. — counterpunch

What case can you make that man has any really grasp of reality? That can man understand anything? Remember, just because you can make something work does not mean that you have any real understanding. After all, the cave man used fire. Did s/he understand fire? There are, of course, many contemporary examples of many practical uses of things in where there is no understand (actually, everything :).

Technology based on scientific principles - works within a causal reality, and what is more the closer the technology approximates the scientific principle, the better the technology works. — counterpunch

I keep attempting to point out that your scientific principles have a very short half-life, soon to be replaced by the next batch, and the next batch after that, ad infinitum.

I think your magma energy idea is a great one. Are people doing serious research?

Recognizing the truth value of science provides the rationale to apply technology as suggested by a scientific understanding of reality, and so - you see why I am forced to dismiss your subjectivist, relativist, skeptical, nihilistic - rejection of truth and/or morality. — counterpunch

I would be that I have used science a great deal more than have you. It's not that I don't recognize its value, it's just that I also recognize its limitation, something I feel is much more important.

Are you denying the relative nature of all things knowable (excluding morality)? Rule one...all things knowable are subject to constant change. And I do not reject truth, I just categorize it into realtive and absolute.

It's not that I care particularly what you choose to believe, but that my approach to sustainability is based on the existence of an objective reality - of which we are reliably able to establish valid knowledge. — counterpunch

We need more affordable (clean) energy. Mining magma might be a good sustainable solution. Need more be said?

What case can you make that man has any really grasp of reality? That can man understand anything? Remember, just because you can make something work does not mean that you have any real understanding. — synthesis

I cannot explain it to someone who will not understand. And if you ask that question, then you demonstrate your refusal to understand. You reject any reasonable standard of knowledge short of omniscience. There's no further discussion possible. Indeed, how can you understand a word I'm saying? You don't know all the words!

If you believe that to be the case, how can explain the fact that I have been able to be quite successful professionally? What I do takes a great deal of experience and skill. How would that be possible?

Just consider the possibility that there might be other ways to go about doing things.

Perhaps better ways?

If you believe that to be the case, how can explain the fact that I have been able to be quite successful professionally? — synthesis

Strong social media strategy?

What I do takes a great deal of experience and skill. How would that be possible? — synthesis

They train monkeys to go into space!

Just consider the possibility that there might be other ways to go about doing things. — synthesis

Okay, if you'll consider the possibility that in theory, there is a scientifically rational, systematic application of technology that is the right way to go about a prosperous sustainable future - we might agree to differ on what we each mean by truth.

Okay, if you'll consider the possibility that in theory, there is a scientifically rational, systematic application of technology that is the right way to go about a prosperous sustainable future - we might agree to differ on what we each mean by truth. — counterpunch

I never disagreed with any of this. My point was that you can not actually understand it. You are working within a system that produces results based on a flawed platform.

I've really never chatted anyone scientifically-oriented who would disagree with this.

You seek to hold science inadequate to an idea of truth as absolute and certain knowledge, to which science does not aspire. I make no such claim on behalf of science. Previously I've claimed science now constitutes an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we ought attend to should we wish to survive. For me, truth is demonstrated by a functional relationship between knowledge, action and consequence. It's true because it works! For you, it is omniscience or idiocy!

For me, truth is demonstrated by a functional relationship between knowledge, action and consequence. It's true because it works! — counterpunch

Now we get to the heart of the matter.

You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked!

For you, it is omniscience or idiocy! — counterpunch

Not at all. The Truth is present. We simply cannot appreciate it. What we do is use our primordial intellect to guess and then refine those guesses over time. Wouldn't it make sense to take such into account?

I am no more anti-science than I am anti-love, but I can no more understand the former than I can the later.

It is the door that makes the room functional.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. You say that truth is demonstrated by a "functional relationship" between knowledge, action, and consequence. You go on to say, it's true because it works. So, how is this different from those in the past who believed that it was the gods that made things work. Wasn't their rationale just as valid? There existed a solid relationship between knowledge, action, and consequence. Made perfect sense to them. And it was true (to them) because it worked! — synthesis

Scientific principles explain how things work for real. Is that not miraculous? Have you ever felt that, understanding something scientific, you are part of something greater? I have. I don't know if God exists or not, but the control of reality we prayed for from God, is now in our hands. Because, and insofar as science is true, it can be applied to create technologies that work. Our prayers are answered - or our oblivion is assured, depending on who we are in relation to this potent truth. So far, nuclear weapons and climate change!

Not at all. The Truth is present. We simply cannot appreciate it. What we do is use our primordial intellect to guess and then refine those guesses over time. Wouldn't it make sense to take such into account? — synthesis

Okay, so now you've switched to reality as a Platonic ideal argument against science as truth. But here's your problem; science is a practical perspective on truth. It works insofar as knowledge corresponds to reality, so your distant idealism is false in practice. Reality exists, we experience it, and can form generalisable laws about how it works - and then apply those laws to create technologies that function. Why is that not sufficient proof for you? I don't know what it is you think needs taking into account. Your dismissive tone, perhaps?

Scientific principles explain how things work for real. Is that not miraculous? — counterpunch

For real? Nothing in science that is thought to be true today will be in 500 years, so how is that "real?" This is not to say that I cannot use science, but you have to take into account that this knowledge is transient. Taking this position allows, (no, insists) that the individual consider other possibilities (in my situation, alternative medical treatments) critical to those who strive to push the frontiers of current practices.

Okay, so now you've switched to reality as a Platonic ideal argument against science as truth. But here's your problem; science is a practical perspective on truth. It works insofar as knowledge corresponds to reality, so your distant idealism is false in practice. Reality exists, we experience it, and can form generalisable laws about how it works - and then apply those laws to create technologies that function. — counterpunch

We exist in two different domains I share your world of relative intellectual truth, but move into another when critical thinking is no longer useful (accessed through meditation). This other sphere is where Truth is absolute but inaccessible (intellectually).

This is what you rail against for no reason I can ascertain.

Nothing in science that is thought to be true today will be in 500 years — synthesis

I disagree. Reality worked the same way 500 years ago as it does today. We didn't understand at all how it worked then, but we have a much better idea now, and because reality will be fundamentally the same 500 years from now, what is true now, will still be true in 500 years time.

In 500 years, we will know more. Physics may conceptualise reality in terms of a ToE (theory of everything) for example, but subsumed under that more highly generalised paradigm will be definite physical truths, like the second law of thermodynamics.

Consider this sequence: the Bible, Copernicus, Newton, Einstein - each developed systems of planetary motion, each one improving upon the others. Even the earliest has factual content - identifying correctly that there are planetary bodies in motion. That factual content is present throughout, unto the last. Copernicus, Newton, Einstein also identify, and account for planetary bodies in motion. So this is where I disagree with Khun: commensurability is implied by the consistent nature of the object of study, and that which is factual is carried forward by increasingly valid knowledge.

Reality worked the same way 500 years ago as it does today. — counterpunch

Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. It is our thinking that changes as we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror.

Combine that with the idea that we can not access any particular moment in real time (we have no access to the present) and you begin to see the magnitude of the dilemma.

Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. It is our thinking that changes as we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror. — synthesis

Ironic, given that you've just been telling me how things will be in 500 years! How is that possible?

NASA launched a probe to slingshot out of earth's gravity, to encounter another planet, and slingshot around that to travel further. As a consequence, NASA had to know exactly where those planets would be in future - down to the meter, years in advance. Scientific understanding has predictive ability - such that it's simply false to suggest "we are always attempting to catch-up with moments only visible in the rear-view mirror."

Ironic, given that you've just been telling me how things will be in 500 years! How is that possible? — counterpunch

It's not possible, but within the context of this conversation, it fits the narrative.

Intellectualizing is like people who are speaking in a specific language/context. Bring in another that is not versed in this language (from another time/culture) and it makes no sense to them.

You are staying within a specific frame of reference and saying this is the truth. I. OTOH, stray from the same and suggest that your truth very narrow and that there are as many potential truths as there are moments in time.

Before you blow a gasket, imagine somebody coming back from the year 2521 and telling you how it is. What would you think about truth then? How about if 99.9% of everything we thought to be true is no longer?

I know for you it doesn't matter and that's fine. Whatever works for you is what you need to roll with. Keep in mind that the biggest mistake people make (vis a vis other people) is assuming that their reality is shared (or worse, that it's universal). Then, they spend the rest of their lives attempting to convince everybody else that this is the case. It's probably the most common cause of relationship failure.

Keep in mind that the biggest mistake people make (vis a vis other people) is assuming that their reality is shared (or worse, that it's universal). Then, they spend the rest of their lives attempting to convince everybody else that this is the case. — synthesis

I've paid attention to science all my life; since childhood, whenever it pops up in the media, or conversation - I pay attention, and so I understand science in a deeper sense than most. It's the psychological concept of 'life script' playing out in relation to a Jungian archetype chosen as a child. I wanted to be a spaceman. I do not imagine everyone wanted to be spacemen. But as you said earlier:

Reality (at any particular moment) NEVER changes. It is what it is. — synthesis

Reality is consistent and universal in nature on the macroscopic, causal scale we inhabit. Therefore, what is scientifically true, is true for me and you, and everyone else the same. You don't inhabit another reality because you believe something else. You may have paid attention to things other than science all your life, and so construe the world in other terms - that much, I wholly accept. But reality exists the same for you and for me - objective with regard to our particular perspectives.

You are staying within a specific frame of reference and saying this is the truth. I. OTOH, stray from the same and suggest that your truth very narrow and that there are as many potential truths as there are moments in time. — synthesis

You protest should any measure of truth be claimed for science, but look around at the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and explain how technology works if the principles upon which the technology is based do not truly describe reality?

Debate about the precise nature of truth is somewhat of an aside; yet integral to the question of where we place our trust in face of the impending existential crisis. Because science is objective with regard to particular interests, recognising the truth value of science creates a level playing field, and provides a strong rationale for what I believe, is the only viable long term solution, that is - harnessing massive clean energy from magma and tackling climate change globally, from the supply side.

In doing so we internalise the consequences of society without internalising the implications to society. We need not have less and pay more, tax this, and stop that to save the world. We can solve this problem going forward, in a way that's not possible for nations thinking solely in terms of their ideological identities and interests.

Science offers a trustworthy rationale beyond all respective ideologies, the implications of recognition of which can be legitimately limited to the systematic application of technologies necessary to a prosperous sustainable future, starting with magma energy, limitless clean electricity, as a basis for carbon capture and storage, desalination and irrigation, recycling, etc, and all before the end consumer - believer of many wonderful things, need even notice!

Reality is consistent and universal in nature on the macroscopic, causal scale we inhabit. Therefore, what is scientifically true, is true for me and you, and everyone else the same. — counterpunch

As stated previously, your reality is only true for a particular moment (in which we lack access). I will give you (that despite this inconvenient idea), we muddle along with our guesses, approximation, and other assorted attempts to make sense of our world, but this not what I am getting at, instead, to truly understand the transient nature of all things knowable places knowledge in another sphere.

Knowledge, although true in a particular moment, is constantly changing, like a Kamikaze gnat we endlessly chase without success. Seeing knowledge in transition is very different than seeing it statically. It is like the aphorism, "You can have everything until you let everything go."

Debate about the precise nature of truth is somewhat of an aside; yet integral to the question of where we place our trust in face of the impending existential crisis. — counterpunch

Your "existential crisis" is what you reap when you plant intellectually altered seeds. Worrying about the end of the world (no matter how this might come about) seems rather silly as this is the fate of all things (they come and go). This is not to disparage your magma theory, but should it not stand on its own instead of on the shoulders of baseless fears that have over-run the last two generations?

"You cannot have everything until you let everything go."