Sorry unenlightened, but I must away. I will get back to you ASAP.

Solar/hydrogen is the best all round solution.
— karl stone

That, or fewer people? :chin: If there were no humans none of the issues we're discussing would have become problematic, would they? So focus clearly on the elephant in this topic: humans are the problem. The topic asks "how to save the world?", and there is an obvious answer.... :gasp: — Pattern-chaser


If that's what you truly believe - kill yourself! You are the only person on earth you have a right to say shouldn't exist. No? Hypocrite! — karl stone

There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem.

No-one mention killing anyone, although that is certainly one possibility. VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. Oh, and please don't ask me questions, then answer them yourself. As straw-man attacks go, I suppose it's efficient, but it's usually considered necessary/appropriate for your correspondent(s) to make their own mistakes, not for you to make them on their behalf, and then debunk them! :razz:

As a side note, to answer some of the criticism of your scheme to use hydrogen, it is quite possible to produce fairly conventional fuel from solar. This would have advantages in not requiring a total transformation of present infrastructure. — unenlightened

I've seen something like this recently; it might even have been you who brought it up before - I'd have to check. I argued against it - not because I think it's a bad idea per se. It's a carbon neutral fuel that works in an internal combustion engine - and that's a good thing. We get the fuel without adding any carbon to the atmosphere. Rather, I was arguing for the approach I favour - which as you know, is a vast array of solar panels floating on the surface of the ocean, producing hydrogen fuel and fresh water.

One of the reasons I chose that approach is, first - because it could provide the world's energy needs sustainably, but secondly, because it doesn't require a total transformation of existing energy infrastructure. I considered a number of ways to utilize hydrogen, including piping hydrogen into the home as a gas, for use in hydrogen fuels cells - producing electricity. That would require a total transformation of infrastructure - and that's why I ruled it out. But beyond the solar/hydrogen production infrastructure, using hydrogen in power stations - energy is distributed through existing grids, and for transport, hydrogen distributed at gas stations - only requires modification of the ICE - (internal combustion engine.) Given that BMW's limited production of an 187 mph HICE - I know it's possible.

You are quite right, though more careful use has a role also. But forests make their own water, or their neighbour's. There is a complex relationship, not fully understandable, between vegetation and aquifers, and there would be some effect also from large scale solar cells cooling the atmosphere and increasing rainfall. But enough is known about the cycle of desertification to understand that the loss of vegetation leads to erosion, faster runoff, and sets up a vicious cycle that can be reversed with careful management. It's not called 'the green movement' for nothing - caring for our green brothers that form the 'other' side of the carbon cycle that we are the consumer side of, has got to be the backbone of the solution. — unenlightened

Well, this is another reason I favour the approach I described - the increasingly desperate need to produce fresh water in vast quantities. Desalination is an energy intensive process however you do it. Electrolysis is the method I favour - and that works well with floating solar panels. But am I going to argue against planting trees? Hell, no! It's precisely to break man's dependence on deforestation for agriculture - often, subsistence agriculture, we need to produce fresh water. Re-planting trees is great - obviously, but logically, might we not want to stop burning forests to clear land for agriculture first? To develop wasteland for agriculture - we need to produce fresh water.

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being a dick about it - but that's not my intention. I'm merely explaining my reasons for picking this particular approach. I love the great green wall - I'm all for planting things; you plant them, and fingers crossed - I'll water them!

There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem. — Pattern-chaser

I'd argue against it. It's too simplistic. It implies we have no choice but to destroy the environment, but that's not so. The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above.

No-one mentioned killing anyone, although that is certainly one possibility. — Pattern-chaser

I don't think so. Technically, it would be very difficult. Eight years of World War Two only killed 50-80 million people. That may seem like a lot, and it is - but in terms of human population as a whole, it's a fraction of a fraction. Besides, how could anyone live with that afterward? We might try, but it would be utterly corrosive to have murdered billions of innocent people for our own gain. And imagine the smell!

VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. — Pattern-chaser

So, besides not eating meat, cycling to work, wearing my overcoat indoors - now you're telling me my kids are a problem. I say this without malice - but fuck you. Live your life as you choose - and bon voyage, but don't tell me that I'm not worthy of existence - because I fucking well am. Part of that existence is a genetic legacy. Not only do I have a natural right to seek to further my genetic legacy - but I have a moral duty to the struggles of all previous generations, to make good on what they suffered to provide me with. From the evolution of my physical form, to the knowledge they gained, and the society they built - that I may make good for future generations - and thereby perpetuate my genetic legacy.

The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? — Pattern-chaser

Sorry Pattern, we're not allowed to look behind the curtain at the assumptions the thread is built upon. That would be philosophy, and we all know philosophy is wrong, bad, rude, etc etc blah, blah, blah.

VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. — Pattern-chaser

In another thread awhile back I suggested that an important method for saving the world would be to produce far fewer men (never did I mention extermination), given that men cause 90%+ of the crime and violence in the world. However, choosing to produce fewer men was deemed genocide by the mods and the thread was deleted.

Imho, that's the real threat from climate change. Climate change will destabilize weak societies, leading to geopolitical instability, and then wars. It will be mostly men who will decide to go to war, and mostly men who will do the fighting, just as it is overwhelmingly men who conduct endless wars on philosophy forums.

The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above. — karl stone

Turning science in to yet another "one true way" religion is swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.

I say this without malice - but fuck you. — karl stone

Oh goodie, now we can yell fuck you at each other. And here I was holding back all this time for nothing. Whoopee! :smile:

In another thread awhile back I suggested that an important method for saving the world would be to produce far fewer men — Jake

In 1750, when the world had about 10% the population it has now, it was hell bent on going through the industrial revolution which began the accelerated deterioration to the ecosystems and contributing largely to the present climatic conditions. I don't think the answer is fewer men, it should be smarter men. The better question is, what would contribute to increased social intelligence?

VHEMT, for example, ask people not to breed, they don't recommend mass extermination. Nor do I. — Pattern-chaser

So, besides not eating meat, cycling to work, wearing my overcoat indoors - now you're telling me my kids are a problem. I say this without malice - but fuck you. Live your life as you choose - and bon voyage, but don't tell me that I'm not worthy of existence - because I fucking well am. — karl stone

I'm neither telling nor asking you to do anything at all. Why do you think I am? :chin:

I especially didn't tell you that you are not worthy of existence. I think you are worthy of existence, but I've been wrong before....

I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly :fear: - and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. [N.B. getting rid of us is most easily achieved by stopping us from breeding, not by killing us all. As you say, this is impractical.] But that's not the only possible solution, and it's not one that I personally recommend. But you have created a thread asking how to save the world. Some things that would save the world provoke anger and insults from you. Why is this? Do you mean to ask how the world might be saved if we all stick to your beliefs?

There's a fair amount of unravelling to do here. This topic asks "How to save the world?". The question that sits just before that one is: WHY does the world need saving? And I don't think that answer to that one is contentious, or one that anyone here would argue with: humans are the problem. — Pattern-chaser


I'd argue against it. It's too simplistic. It implies we have no choice but to destroy the environment, but that's not so. The reason we have had such a detrimental impact on the environment is because our relationship to science is wrong, as explained above. — karl stone

You'd argue against it .. by pointing out that, while it's actually true, and you aren't and can't argue against it, it's all our fault for not treating science correctly. :chin: Is that it? :chin:

I'm neither telling nor asking you to do anything at all. Why do you think I am? — Pattern-chaser

It's the natural inference of your position, as set out in a thread entitled - How to Save the World. You're making people the problem - and that's always wrong. If it's something you believe - fine, but don't publish it - because you are suggesting I should adopt that approach too. You are implying that my existence, and my children's existence is not worthwhile.

I especially didn't tell you that you are not worthy of existence. I think you are worthy of existence, but I've been wrong before.... — Pattern-chaser

To be frank, it's not your call.

I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly — Pattern-chaser

I don't dispute that, but that's not all you're saying.

- and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. — Pattern-chaser

It's not the right answer. Consider philosophical conundrums like - "If a tree falls in forest.." and you might begin to understand why it's not the right answer. We matter. Intelligent life is the first addition to the universe in 15 billion years - an emergent property that should reach its full potential.

But that's not the only possible solution, and it's not one that I personally recommend. — Pattern-chaser

You fooled me! I thought you were serious. In that case, thank you for bringing this issue up - despite my angry reaction, it's actually been useful to argue against this view.

Some things that would save the world provoke anger and insults from you. Why is this? — Pattern-chaser

I'm just passionate. I don't mean to cause anyone pain or harm. But there are times when it's necessary to bang on the table. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Do you mean to ask how the world might be saved if we all stick to your beliefs? — Pattern-chaser

No. I mean to say that adopting my "beliefs" will save the world. I'm not asking - I'm telling. This is a proposal, not a question - a broad brushstrokes plan, that explains from philosophical premises where we went wrong, and how to correct it without turning the world upside down. Or killing everyone!

I don't think the answer is fewer men, it should be smarter men. — BrianW

Come up with a way to make men only as violent as women, and you've got a plan worth talking about. Until then, violent men threaten to crash civilization with all this power we're giving them.

I have observed that humans are the cause of the world's problems - which we are, sadly :fear: - and that one way to sure most of the world's problems would be to get rid of us. — Pattern-chaser

Women pose about 10% of the threat that men pose. Just turn on your TV and look. Who is it on the screen doing all the carnage? Not your Aunt Betty! :smile:

Intelligent life is the first addition to the universe in 15 billion years — karl stone

A species which deliberately aims thousands of hydrogen bombs down it's own throat qualifies as "intelligent life"??

I'm just passionate. I don't mean to cause anyone pain or harm. But there are times when it's necessary to bang on the table. — karl stone

There you go. And if you're going to claim the right to bang on the table, that right has to be extended to your conversation partners as well.

I mean to say that adopting my beliefs will save the world. — karl stone

There's exactly no chance that humanity will adopt your beliefs. So where do we go from there? Are we still interested in saving the world? Or is it your beliefs that we're really saving here?

Doom mongers, who don't read other's posts - and so don't take on board repeated explanations of why, what's right about their ideas is subsumed under a paradigm with greater explanatory potential, while theirs reaches a false conclusion, should not expect to have their trolling acknowledged, less yet encouraged.

We'd be spoiling your thread to continue a discussion of socialism here; there's Tinman's thread on socialism and Fdrake's thread on Marx's value theory if we want to pursue the topic.

By the way, it was Salvador Allende who was the democratic socialist in Chile; General Pinochet was a run of the mill South American dictator after Allende. The US helped kill Allende in 1973.

By men, I mean human beings, both men and women, who also equally succumb to power trips. I think the major difference has been the persistence of gender roles over most people's personas. With time, greater realisation of equality between men and women will result in greater diffusion of previous gender-defined roles and attitudes.

We'd be spoiling your thread to continue a discussion of socialism here; there's Tinman's thread on socialism and Fdrake's thread on Marx's value theory if we want to pursue the topic. — Bitter Crank

I cannot promise I'll be there soon - I have my hands fairly full, and while I thought it was important to state a position here, I'm not out to spread the message. The moderate left has achieved an enormous amount for ordinary people - and plays an important role balancing out oligarchic power. Personally, I'd have a political spectrum ranging from ideologue to scientist - but left to right will have to do for now!!

By the way, it was Salvador Allende who was the democratic socialist in Chile; General Pinochet was a run of the mill South American dictator after Allende. The US helped kill Allende in 1973. — Bitter Crank

I may have got it wrong - I didn't research the film after I saw it - The Colony with Emma Watson, for the benefit of readers. Astonishing film based closely on real events. I got the impression it was Pinochet - but I could be mistaken.

By men, I mean human beings, both men and women, who also equally succumb to power trips. I think the major difference has been the persistence of gender roles over most people's personas. With time, greater realisation of equality between men and women will result in greater diffusion of previous gender-defined roles and attitudes. — BrianW

Apologies, but this is just trendy political correctness fad of the day stuff, which ignores literally millions of years of human evolution. Not a theory. Turn on your TV. See for yourself who is, and who long has been since the dawn of time, doing the violence.

Personally, I'd have a political spectrum ranging from ideologue to scientist — karl stone

Personally, you would endorse a science worshiping ideology. You are the spectrum! :smile:

Doom mongers, who don't read other's posts - and so don't take on board repeated explanations of why, what's right about their ideas is subsumed under a paradigm with greater explanatory potential, while theirs reaches a false conclusion, should not expect to have their trolling acknowledged, less yet encouraged. — karl stone

Thank you for acknowledging my doom mongering trolling while at the same time claiming not to.

Your comment here is a classic example of the true believer mindset. You keep assuming that if only I was reading your posts then I would obviously see the genius of your position and join the religion you are selling. What's happened instead is that I've read all your posts and presented an effective philosophical rebuttal, which you are unable to handle emotionally, and so you are running from further engagement.

My ideas are NOT subsumed under your paradigm, because you don't even really know what your paradigm is other than to repeat the phrase "science as truth". Speaking of explanatory potential, please explain to us how you will convert humanity to your "science as truth" religion. How about those climate change denier Trump voters, what will you say to them to win them over? Even if your "science as truth" religion really is the "one true way" that doesn't matter unless you can somehow convert much of humanity over to your point of view. And that's not going to happen any time soon, or ever.

And meanwhile, the clock is ticking, as we race at ever faster speeds towards some power which we won't be able to successfully manage, just as is predicted by the Peter Principle. It's not doom mongering to point to this reality, just as it's not doom mongering to inform your neighbor that they're about to catch their house on fire with those leaves they are burning in the front yard. My position is just simple common sense, no more complicated than how we routinely limit the powers available to children.

The problem you're experiencing is that you've bought lock, stock and barrel in to a simplistic "more is better" group consensus which is not capable of common sense. The group consensus says, "Of course we should limit the powers available to teens!" and then on the teen's 18th birthday the tune changes to "Of course we should have as much power as we can possibly get, as fast as possible!" This mindset is just NONSENSE which I'm attempting to liberate you from.

I'm sorry. I really have no personal beef with you. But you're living in a dream land, and you've brought your dream to a philosophy forum, an Internet service which specializes in ripping things to shreds. Hey, my stuff gets ripped to shreds too, it's not personal, it's not about you.

Personally, you would endorse a science worshiping ideology. You are the spectrum! — Jake

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality. It hasn't built, fact by hard won fact into a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality, as it really is - to compare to ideological conceptions of reality. You're saying the world did come with nation states borders painted on it - and that money does grow on trees, naturally. You're saying that thousands of conflicting religious ideologies are all true, and not at all made up - but that science is voodoo? You're saying if we destroyed every religious text and every science book today - it would be religion that was back in 100 years, exactly the same, and not the science books? Well, hallelujah, God Save the Queen, and get your hands off my stack!

If women were better suited to saving the world, they would not be passive by-standers as men sank everything into oblivion. Let's face it, neither men nor women know better when it comes to saving the world. Which brings me back to my point that, what's needed is more intelligence about managing human affairs. We need to be able to collectively realise the greater need, be able to collectively organise our priorities appropriately, be able to collectively overcome our personal limitations for the greater good, develop greater collective self-control to avoid unnecessary antagonism, etc, etc.

Women may seem like better choices from certain points of view in social interactions but from a leadership stance, history shows how fickle they've been compared to men. From my perspective, everything considered, I'll call it a tie between them. It's an unholy balance between men who've been too ambitious to realise the limit to their capacities and women who've been too submissive to exert any significant orientation to the overall course of human progress especially against the mire we currently find ourselves in. Just like a bicycle would stop regardless of whether the brakes were applied to the front or back wheels, so also negative impulses in human development could have been extensively diminished by either men or women, leaders or followers. The fact that none has been any the wiser to fully realise their role to the greater society, speaks volumes about the application of human intelligence thus far.

First, thank you for re-engaging. In thanks I'll make a good faith effort to downscale my ornery bombastic belchings. Sorry for getting so wound up.

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality. — karl stone

I agree to this, no problem. But that doesn't automatically equal more science being better in every case. My complaint is not with science which I see as being an effective tool, which like any tool is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My complaint is with our relationship with science.

Valid knowledge of reality is not a "one true way", imho. It is instead a powerful tool to be used with discerning judgment. As I've explained ad nauseam, we already deliberately limit the powers available to children, and all I'm doing is extending that concept to adults. Obviously adults can handle more power than children. But that doesn't automatically equal adults being able to successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate.

And yet, that is what the group consensus requests from science, ever more power delivered at an ever accelerating rate.

What does this have to do with your opening post? Your proposal, whatever it's specific merits may be as a technical solution, arises out of this flawed group consensus assumption, ie. more=better. I'm not ignoring your proposal, I'm addressing the assumption it's built upon because, you know, this is a philosophy forum and digging below the surface is the kind of thing philosophers tend to do.

The group consensus, the majority of us, don't see a need to examine the "more is better" assumption because the validity of that assumption is taken to be an obvious given. This is understandable because the "more is better" assumption has been very valid for a very long time.

However, due to the awesome power of science which you correctly point to, the world is changing, and changing at an ever accelerating rate. And some of the cherished assumptions of the past are not going to find a happy home in the new environment which is emerging.

If we cling to outdated assumptions and try to build solutions upon them, we are likely to create more problems than we solve.

I mean to say that adopting my "beliefs" will save the world. I'm not asking - I'm telling. — karl stone

I've always found One Truthers scary. :scream: Discussion is pointless. :fear: Shame. :roll:

If women were better suited to saving the world, they would not be passive by-standers as men sank everything into oblivion. Let's face it, neither men nor women know better when it comes to saving the world. — BrianW

I'm not claiming that women are gods with all the answers, only that they aren't as violent as men, a factor which grows in importance as we fill the world with ever larger powers.

Which brings me back to my point that, what's needed is more intelligence about managing human affairs. We need to be able to collectively realise the greater need, be able to collectively organise our priorities appropriately, be able to collectively overcome our personal limitations for the greater good, develop greater collective self-control to avoid unnecessary antagonism, etc, etc. — BrianW

I agree with all this of course. My point is that we're not likely to complete such a centuries long process because violent men will use the awesome powers now available to us to crash the system long before we get there. You know, thousands of hydrogen bombs, locked, loaded and ready to go at a moment's notice. A single press of a button by a single person, and it's game over.

Or killing everyone! — karl stone

I note just one last time: no-one has suggested killing. Except you. The human race could be got rid of, if that is our aim, by simply preventing us breeding. There is no need/call for piles of bodies. Straw man. :roll:

First, thank you for re-engaging. In thanks I'll make a good faith effort to downscale my ornery bombastic belchings. Sorry for getting so wound up. — Jake

Ditto. I'm sorry too. For my over-reaction - just to be crystal clear.

So, you're saying science doesn't establish valid knowledge of reality.
— karl stone

I agree to this, no problem. But that doesn't automatically equal more science being better in every case. My complaint is not with science which I see as being an effective tool, which like any tool is neither good nor bad in and of itself. My complaint is with our relationship with science. — Jake

But it's only indiscriminately more - if you ignore science as truth, and only apply technology for profit and power. If you accept there's a natural responsibility owed to valid knowledge of reality, because it's valid, it will guide us in applying technology in a valid way.

I'll try and give you a metaphor to explain the principle. Imagine yourself in the middle of a city with a map of that city - and you want to get to... the train station. But you're holding the map upside down. You follow the directions - left, right, straight on - but don't get to the train station. Why not? Because there's a cause and effect relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action - and the consequences of that action. i.e. if your info is wrong, you can do the right thing - but you won't get where you're going. And that's us - doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

I'm going to stop there - because I need to know you have understood this concept.