Do you trust humans to give you an accurate model of the future? Extreme poverty is in decline, life expectancy has more than doubled since 1900. Is it really time to cower in some bunker? — NOS4A2

For the last three years life expectancy in the USA has declined, so something ain’t right.

For the last three years life expectancy in the USA has declined, so something ain’t right. — praxis

Something ain't right, for sure. The UK has also experienced a decline in life expectancy, but we are talking about a small change for both the US and UK..

"Life expectancy" is an average. The decline has been brought about by higher rates of death among people who use opiates (ODs) and chronic users of highly addictive drugs like meth. Suicide rates among working class men have also lowered life expectancy. Deaths from heart attacks are down, and deaths from cancer are either steady or declining.

In the last 50 years the rate of smoking among adults has dropped from around 45% to about 15%. The rate of lung cancer deaths has fallen for people who quit smoking say 20 years ago. Some people are living longer and some people are dying younger.

In a healthier society (one less sickened by the depredations of capitalist predators like the Sackler family's opiate racket) we would live longer and/or happier lives.

In a healthier society (one less sickened by the depredations of capitalist predators like the Sackler family's opiate racket) we would live longer and/or happier lives. — Bitter Crank

Would we? And is it really that easy to pin the guilt on capitalist predators like the Sackler family? I think a healthy society could handle its predators.

My goodness, that is a strong criticism. — Athena

It is strong criticism. My only concern is that it might be counter productive.

The fact that you suggest particular books to read that would “change” my mind means you’ve already put me in a particular camp, where I approve of mindless destruction in the name of capitalism.

It’s true that nature does work to keep things in balance, but it’s a dynamic planet so you can’t be sure of what exactly that balance is. My negative interpretation of your concern is that we can’t go back to your pagan way of life. The “hostile negativity’ is an effort to stop what I regard as a movement that will not help us or the planet, a movement incapable of dealing in reality and in the adaptability and extraordinary development of the species we are.

Of course we are capable of damaging the environment, just by our sheer numbers alone, and there has been a lot of work done to mitigate this damage. There’s little doubt that people are generally healthier than they’ve ever been. True, some people are still struggling, but not in the same way they have in the past.

What I find myself resisting is the doomsday mentality, not as extreme in your post, but still there by association.

“Even if the changing weather patterns did not lead to our doom, our refusal to live with the limits of our environments and the limits of the planet, will take us down. Just as every civilization before us fell, including the fall of Rome and South American civilizations.”

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist. I don’t see it as helpful to pass this on to the next generation. Of course help them to understand the importance of our relationship to the environment, but don’t crush their hope or educate them through fear.

There is no contradiction in what I said. Also as far as I know I'm simply repeating the official line. — TheMadFool

Yes, I know it’s the party line. I’ve done the reading. As I said I just find it hard to accept a sentence or idea containing the words ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’.

I am old and as far as I am concerned if humans do not thrive, nothing matters. — Athena

So you think the other animals, the plants and the Earth don't matter in their own right? The monstrous irony is that it is precisely that almost universal held (in the developed nations at least) attitude that destroys any possibility of sustainable human thriving.

I am alarmed by someone flagging this thread for not being philosophical. I am not sure how moderators here handle such conflicts of interest, between those who want to remain blind to reality and keep everything pleasant, and those who want to raise awareness of problems with the hope we will use knowledge to resolve problems. Science comes out of philosophy, let us hope those who love philosophy do not turn their backs on science. Doesn't philosophy mean a love of knowledge? Should we shut down threads that are knowledge of things we don't want to think about? — Athena

This is possibly another reason why my posts are so critical.

But you are attempting to undermine my position while not engaging. What's that about? — Punshhh

It's a symptom of the socio-cultural state of the nation. — Punshhh

Is it a healthy symptom? In what way might you regard it as healthy and therefore constructive, not for you alone, to maintaining a functioning society?

Would we? And is it really that easy to pin the guilt on capitalist predators like the Sackler family? I think a healthy society could handle its predators. — praxis

It really is that easy if you are prepared to foreswear fealty to capitalism and face how ruthlessly exploitative capitalists tend to be. The Sacklers are guilty; the Koch brothers are guilty; lots of people are guilty of fucking over the world in really very exploitative ways. They can be named. We could change the laws which protects these bastards. They could be put out of business. That would be a healthy society at work. Instead we stand around with our thumbs up our collective asses muttering drivel about free enterprise, and all that crap.

I don't think it is necessary to point out that capitalists are not standing idly by, waiting for the peasants to take up pitchforks and torches and burn the castle down. They industriously propagandize and legislate on their own behalf, and we fools believe them.

Maybe we need a new word here. I was wondering at what point on a descending line we would find a capitalist business that is not really one of exploitation and destruction, because obviously all business is not like that. There are businesses out the in the world that thrive on good employer/employee relationships, that are responsible and contribute to society and our wellbeing. Maybe we need a new word for the thing we are talking about here. Maybe it’s not capitalism at all.

Maybe we should be done with it and call them Oligarchs.

No, we don't need another word. Capitalism is a good accurate term. So, every capitalist is not guilty of Sackler-grade crimes. The universe is full of such annoying incongruities. Just round up the usual suspects, and later you can let the nice wolves go. Oligarchs? They don't have to be capitalists (oligarchs existed before capitalism) but some capitalists are oligarchs.

I think you’re getting cranky @Bitter Crank

Does the owner of an apple orchard need to be condemned because he produces and trades his goods? I think it’s wrong and destructive to use definitions so loosely and bitterly.

I'm cranky, sure. But there is nothing wrong with "capital", "capitalism", and "capitalist". The Wall Street Journal uses these terms proudly. Capitalism is an economic system of corporations producing profit for stockholders. (Individual entrepreneurs, of course, do that for themselves.) It is a very robust, powerful system. It's a great system for those who are its primary beneficiaries: stockholders, managers, and well-paid employees who receive benefits. It's a very bad system for those who suffer the consequences of corporate actions which produced profits but damaged the world. It is a bad system for employees who are crudely exploited.

There is a quantitative difference and almost of necessity a qualitative difference between the small apple grower who sells produce at small farmers markets on the one hand, and United Fruit Company which fucked over Central America (they started back in 1899) with the help of American gun boat diplomacy. There is a difference between Whole Foods (now part of Amazon) and the couple that raise specialty mushrooms in their basement and sell fresh at farmers markets. Sure, it seems like the couple was selling the mushrooms for a pretty penny ($32 a pound) but they were excellent, and they aren't receiving any government subsidies and aren't covered by crop insurance.

The apple farmer and mushroom producer are what are called "petite bourgeoisie". The US has millions of petite bourgeoisie, operating family farms, small grocery stores, repair shops, small diners, little businesses selling stuff or a service, and the like. Much different than Jeff Bezos at Amazon. In many ways these petite bourgeoisie are the salt of the earth. They work very hard for very modest returns.

The Sackler family are multi-billionaires and are not even remotely in the same league as the guy with the small apple orchard guy. So yes, distinctions can be made between the tiny, petite (pronounced 'petty') bourgeoisie and multinational, multi-billion dollar mogul.

But the capitalist mandate is dangerous: maximize profit, externalize costs, pay workers the lowest possible wages, sell the product at the highest possible price. Never ask whether what you are selling is "good". If it makes money, that is all that matters.

"Good" and "bad" corporations all do the same things, pretty much. Take 3M, maker of Post-It notes and Scotch Tape. They make a lot of other stuff, too. They make a lot of fire-retardants, everything from a chemical found in children's pajamas to the foam spread on the runway when a plan may have crash on landing. These fine products contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), chemicals that never break down but do bio-accumulate. Studies have documented multiple effects, including cancers in highly exposed groups — especially testicular and kidney cancers — as well as impacts to the immune system and metabolism. Evidence also indicates that elevated PFAS in wildlife can lead to developmental and reproductive problems, the groups noted.

Millions of tons of the product have been very profitably sold, and now these chemicals are everywhere, from the suburban St. Paul, MN water systems contaminated by 3M dumps, to ice in the antarctic; from people in China to squirrels in Central Park. Everywhere. Fire retardants would seem like a good thing at first glance, but then we find they are 'forever chemicals' that can make us animals sick when concentrated by bioaccumulation (like bald eagles, apex predators, getting dosed with the stuff).

I think you’re being arbitrary. Run your eye up that line I was talking about, through the petite bourgeoisie until you find the corrupt. You jump from the apple farmers to Amazon as if there’s nothing in between.

Was 3M corrupt in their initial intentions? I don’t know if they were or not. People were happy to have an innovation like fire retardants in children’s pyjamas. Just like today people are happy with vaccinations. If in the future it turns out vaccines weren’t a good idea are we going to suddenly accuse those pharmaceutical companies of corruption, of getting rich at the expense of peoples’ health?

Yes, I know it’s the party line. I’ve done the reading. As I said I just find it hard to accept a sentence or idea containing the words ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘knowledge’. — Brett

Perhaps a noncommittal word like "information" is more suited then.

Perhaps a noncommittal word like "information" is more suited then. — TheMadFool

Used how?

Used how? — Brett

"Information" doesn't have as much theoretical baggage as "knowledge"

“Belief has to be true for it to count as information.”

I don’t think I’d want to be responsible for a sentence like that.

You jump from the apple farmers to Amazon as if there’s nothing in between. — Brett

Come on, Brett, buddy. One can't cover all the possibilities with out a post that would be longer than the entire oeuvre of The Philosophy Forum.

Was 3M corrupt in their initial intentions? — Brett

Probably not. The intention of developing fire retardants was not corrupt. It may have been ill-advised, it may have been saintly; I don't know, I wasn't in on the planning. What was much less morally ambiguous was dumping a lot of the chemicals used in a permeable soil dump, where the stuff percolated down (quite a long way) to the water table. They dumped PFAS and PFAS waste in various states, not just in Minnesota.

The sales effort involved in getting PFAS into everything from pajamas to carpet to adult rain gear (!) and much more was probably independent of any caution their chemistry department had about the stuff. It has become ubiquitous, and it won't be disappearing anytime soon. What 3M did was decide that it was a good idea to coat the planet with a super stable chemical that is known to cause health and environmental problems independently of its beneficial aspects. That for the sake of profit. Lots of large corporations have done exactly the same thing with other chemicals and products.

Is it a healthy symptom? In what way might you regard it as healthy and therefore constructive, not for you alone, to maintaining a functioning society?

I'm not qualified to give a health check on the US. But I have a sense that things have gone a bit awry since the development of globalisation. I can understand why Lif3r wants to surround himself with guns in a country awash with guns.

Also you seem to be one of those posters who cherrypick things to dispute, or criticise and yet I notice you have kept your powder dry.

How do you mean?

So what is your synopsis?

For what?

"Humanity's eviction notice"

Excuse me but I must disagree with you. Not only do I find little value in life without humans, but robots also demand finite resources. A problem with electric cars is the finite resources required for their batteries. But what if we are God's consciousness? Can that be transferred to a robot? I don't think so.
And our planet sure does not need robots to preserve life. But many ancient cultures thought it was man's purpose to help nature. Too bad we don't live with that belief today. — Athena

The problem is not resources but capitalism, which is burning up the world. It's my own notion that it is probably an inevitable evolutionary development, the reason no-one has ever contacted us - they're all ashes. I suppose some sort of 'natural' life may evolve to live in the heat, but so what? We'd have more in common with robots we ourselves had developed, I think. We have all the possible historical beliefs to prevent destruction available to us, but unfortunately we live in a system dedicated to immediate profit whatever the cost. I wish we didn't.

I'm not qualified to give a health check on the US. — Punshhh

Very few of us are qualified to comment on any of the issues that crop up on these OPs. Most of us regard our opinion as some sort of factual proof used to demolish the opinion of someone else.
You asked me what my synopsis was on ‘Humanity’s eviction notice’. I don’t even know what you mean. Do you mean for me to present a synopsis in opposition to @Lif3r? I can’t forecast the future any more than anyone else can. For me his type of post, and yours, suggest some dark psychological space where you can indulge, without harm, in some end game scenario of death and destruction. To me it’s a nihilistic game that does no good for others trying to get by or the next generation coping with life that’s difficult enough under ordinary circumstances.

I’ve already made myself clear on this point. What you’re creating, or supporting, is a sort of quasi doomsday religion. No one’s allowed to voice another opinion, if they do they’re a heretic. It reminds me of the position of Christians when they we’re challenged by Darwinism, no good Christian could voice the possibility of it being true without being excommunicated. It’s all belief in the coming apocalypse.

What will happen? Like all these things it will pass by. There will be less and less interest from the public. The MSM will move on and headline other issues. When government grants in alternatives dry up then business will move on. There will be no Nazis in Washington. There will be no flooded cities. Worse still, you will have damaged faith in science, you will have contributed to the demise of socialist and social Democrat parties who will be lost in the wilderness without a constituency, pointless and unable to offer opposition to governments on the right and the power of corporations.

The problem for people will be in the effort required to right itself from the blow you have delivered in your little end game fantasy, the damage you will have done to developing countries, the costs and damage done to energy sources, the instability you will have created in economies, the division in communities, the lack of faith in how good we can be.

But people will recover, they always do, but first they have to clean up the mess that was left by you.

How else would you advise informing coming generations of environmental issues? Aught we sing a new ashes to ashes jingle for them?

How else would you advise informing coming generations of environmental issues? — Lif3r

The same way we always have.