• Brett
    1.1k
    I know this could degenerate quickly, so if the mods delete this OP, fine,

    But this is a philosophy forum. By that I mean everything is examined and debated, stripped down, deconstructed and restructured. Everyone comes at a question from their own perspective. They quote their favourite philosopher or the one from which they built their own take on things and they address the world from a specific philosophical perspective.

    This is the situation, as I see it, on climate change:

    1). Climate change is real.

    2). Climate change is man made

    3). Climate change is natural

    4). Climate change is not real

    5). We need to act on Climate Change now otherwise it’s the end for us

    6). We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human

    world is restructured economically and socially

    7). We don’t act and nothing changes

    8). We don’t act and have to deal with virtual extinction

    9). We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically

    and socially

    10). The trigger is warmer temperatures


    In an article Wayfarer posted temperatures were projected as possibly 4 degrees higher than they are by the year 3000, which would set off all sorts of cataclysmic consequences. What is, for example using laws of probability, the chance of that happening, what are the odds, and what are the odds of other factors intervening in the meantime?

    Everyone knows the science, everyone refers to it. But from a philosophical point of view what is, for instance, the chance of each one of these possibilities happening if you applied laws of probability, or ideas of existential relativity, ethics, Marxism, utilitarianism, or what Baudrillard calls “an excessive proliferation of meaning”, or any numbers of philosophies I know nothing about.

    It seems very unusual to me that everyone would simply look at the situation and say, “The science is in” and think no more of it.

    If you were asked to address the situation from your philosophical beliefs how would you talk about it? Would you address each one of the points, shouldn’t all thing be considered, and all things considered possible? Is there really only one way to look at this? It seems to me there should be something like 100 posts all different, each one coming from a different angle, each point addressed and valued in relation to the ideas applied to it.

    If the OP stays I will, of course, put up my own post.

    Edit: obviously my year 3000 figure is wrong. My poor maths.

    Edit: the reference was a century from now.
  • Janus
    8.7k
    The current rapid climate change is either human induced, or at least influenced, or it is not. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with philosophical worldviews.There is a scientific consensus that it is largely human induced, which is not a proof that that is so, but the fact of consensus among the experts gives us very little reason to doubt their conclusions. So, what are you trying to achieve, question or get at with this OP?
  • Brett
    1.1k
    My position from a Darwinian/Gaian/social point of view, probably fatalistic.

    Through that I address point 6 and 9.

    6) We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human world is restructured economically and socially by forces initially beyond our control. 1000 years before we reach the critical 4 degrees increase. There is upheaval. Much suffering. Population numbers fall, as a result of changes temperature levels fall. The changes are slow but relentless. Populations fall to manageable levels, a balance is eventually reached over people versus resources, where they live, how they live. The consequences affect social norms and how things have been done in the past which led to the global changes we are confronted with. The final outcome is one determined by seemingly random events and chaos that lead to stability. The possibility of extinction is averted.
    Point 6 also allows for points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.


    9) We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically and socially. We act quickly. Reports indicate we have 12 years to act. Changes are extreme. Loss of jobs, loss of confidence, change to economic systems. Psychological disturbances reach high levels. We exert control over our actions and how we want the planet to be. Climate change is averted at a catastrophic level. Population numbers continue to grow, changes in government affect peoples’ ability to make free choices. The way of life for all cultures is pushed to change. All decisions must revolve around the environment and resources. Ideas about ethics and values are repositioned. The possibility if extinction is averted. Everything about point 6 happens with the addition of high population, tension over resources, borders, co-operation. The balance is enforced by authoritarian government, possibly a world government like the UN. Tight management is necessary. The constant battle to maintain control breeds new problems.
    Point 9 allows for 1, 2, 5, 8, 9.
  • Janus
    8.7k
    1000 years before we reach the critical 4 degrees increase.Brett

    It's a hundred years.,,actually less...the 4 degrees rise in average global temperature is predicted to occur by 2100.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    Yes, my apologies. You’re correct.
  • ovdtogt
    466
    I don't think climate change is the real problem but what climate change is aggravating: That is unbridled migration. We are approaching a migration problem. The is a major factor in advancing popular support for Brexit, Trump and right-wing parties popping up in Europe. We are moving to a world that is less willing to cooperate and in most part considers other countries and people as hostile. We will move towards a world with an increase in civil-disobedience (civil-war), violence and international conflict.
  • Pantagruel
    414
    My perspective:
    Most of the issues relating to climate change are in and of themselves undesirable. Excess CO2 emissions are pollution, and pollution should be minimized on general ecological principles. Desertification is significantly caused by industrial farming practices and these are demonstrably also intrinsically bad.

    So we can address many of the underlying causes of climate change without having to dispute climate change itself.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.

    The solution is simply the rejection of greed.

    But that's not going to happen. We can see, given the facts, what ought be done; and yet do not act.

    And Philosophy? It is irrelevant.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    And Philosophy? It is irrelevant.Banno

    That’s an interesting comment. Philosophy has been done in the most dire of circumstances; the Russian gulags, prisoner of war camps and concentration camps. What it suggests is that philosophy is only applied to philosophy to be relevant.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.6k
    There is a scientific consensus that it is largely human induced, which is not a proof that that is so, but the fact of consensus among the experts gives us very little reason to doubt their conclusions.Janus

    And Philosophy? It is irrelevantBanno

    So pleading to authority and the problem of induction, among other philosophical topics, aren't relevant in this discussion?

    One should ask themselves if they are being consistent across the philosophical board, which includes their philosophical views of science, and the experts consensus that they have rejected in other fields, and fringe elements they have supported that are inconsistent with the experts consensus.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    Oh, Harry. Go for clear thinking. Clear thinking is good.

    But clear thinking is not only found in Philosophy.

    Indeed, clear thinking is rarely found in philosophy.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    Yeah there's a book.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    Yes it’s a book. But I don’t understand a statement like yours on a philosophy forum. It doesn’t make sense. I put the link up to demonstrate that philosophy is hardly irrelevant in terms of climate change and others think so too.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    This conversation just puts me in mind of Marx - Theses on Feuerbach.

    Go ahead an philosophise. I won't stop you.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    Just say you don’t want to do it. I won’t mind.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”

    I agree.
  • Possibility
    787
    Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large.

    The solution is simply the rejection of greed.
    Banno

    Are you sure that’s not something philosophy has anything to do with?

    Rejecting ‘greed’ is a moralistic approach. ‘Greed is bad - let’s point out all the instances of behaviour and being that we recognise as greed and punish them for ruining the planet’. Not a solution.

    The Tragedy of the Commons is a ‘tragedy’ because of the philosophy employed by users - one that is invariably characterised by exclusivity and isolation, but is more importantly ignorant of details regarding the resource itself, their fellow users, sustainable use parameters, responsibility, etc. Elinor Ostrom argues for a bottom-up approach to resource management that appears to successfully override this Tragedy of the Commons. At its heart (in my view) is the system-wide increase of awareness, connection and collaboration, achieved by that system supporting and encouraging awareness, connection and collaboration at smaller, local and more individual levels.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?
  • Brett
    1.1k


    [quote="Banno;357401"
    ]Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?[/quote]

    Is there really anything to talk about at all then? Why even be here?
  • Brett
    1.1k
    I think there’s maybe two groups of people on this forum; those who want to “do” philosophy and those who use it to reflect on the world.
  • Banno
    6.6k
    Why even be here?Brett

    Good point.
  • Possibility
    787
    Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?Banno

    There would certainly be folk whose concept of ‘greed’ is not the same as yours. That you position certain behavioural observations as ‘greed’ and others don’t would be a matter of ‘philosophical’ discussion/debate/conflict in actualising your supposed solution of ‘rejecting greed’.
  • Andrew M
    773
    We can see, given the facts, what ought be done; and yet do not act.Banno

    Maybe people think there is no relation between is and ought?

    That may be a philosophical problem...
  • Andrew M
    773
    Edit: obviously my year 3000 figure is wrong. My poor maths.Brett

    It could be useful to your readers if you edited your original OP with the corrected figure. And also provided a link to a relevant scientific study or UN report.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    Well I don’t like to actually edit an OP. My correction is still clear at the bottom.

    https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

    Edit: and Janus had corrected it in the following post.
  • Andrew M
    773
    Well I don’t like to actually edit an OP. My correction is still clear at the bottom.Brett

    Some people won't bother reading that far if they encounter glaring mistakes. Correcting such mistakes just makes it easier for your readers.

    Edit: and Janus had corrected it in the following post.Brett

    I know. But my first impressions of your OP had already been formed. Anyway, just a suggestion.
  • Harry Hindu
    2.6k
    Oh, Harry. Go for clear thinking. Clear thinking is good.

    But clear thinking is not only found in Philosophy.

    Indeed, clear thinking is rarely found in philosophy.
    Banno

    Logic is a fundamental branch of philosophy - the branch that is used to ensure clear thinking. One might say that if you aren't using logic then you aren't philosophizing. They would be practicing in delusions and fallacious reasoning.
  • Brett
    1.1k


    Correcting such mistakes just makes it easier for your readers.Andrew M

    But it makes comments about the error on the following posts confusing.
  • jorndoe
    746
    Climate change, together with the Anthropocene extinction, is the Tragedy of the Commons writ large. [...]Banno

    Yeap (y)

    , I'd just refer to the scientists that study such things, and then perhaps ask: What's the worst that can happen if we (try to) do something about it? And weighed against the risks of doing nothing?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.