Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. :wink:

Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. — DingoJones

:wink: I know you're joking, but I've actually wondered about the role of drugs. Look at the movements of the 1960s and look at what drugs were being used there versus say the 1980s. I personally think there's a lot to gain from psychedelic substances. Painkillers, cocaine, and alcohol -- not so much (but they have their place!).

I wasnt joking, not really. There is more and more research and knowledge about psychedelics and there uses. Treatment for PTSD chief among them.
We are also learning more about addiction and its relation to drugs.
I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.

What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? — Xtrix

Good question.

I think what can be said for sure is that communism can't be the answer. Environmental pollution was appalling in the Soviet Union and continues to be a huge problem in China which is ruled by the Communist Party.

Capitalism also seems to create some problems.

So, I tend to think that either (a) we create a new culture, religion, and political-economic system, or (b) we return to an old one from the time before all these problems started.

Bah. If we only had a magic bullet. In my experience, when people are told the severity of the two examples you provide, they tend to shrug or say something to the effect of "we're doomed" (using more forceful language).

I suspect that the very real problem of social alienation is the biggest culprit here, preventing people from seeing how masses can change laws to attain a more just future.

To be sure, our leaders will react once the sea enters land or they suffer severe skin burns from being outside for a few minutes or from the shortage of water. But then we're in a Mad Max territory.

The only thing that seems to me plausible is to have people focus on one concrete project related to these issues, say, closing one pipeline or reducing the budget of the military a little in a certain project.

But aside from this, I have nothing. Pessimism is easy, I know. But if it's true for the species, then it's a given. We don't know yet and I hope I'm wrong. I would not hold my breath.

What are the problems of the world today? — Xtrix

Not to get into too much detail for the answer, but I would guess it to be at least 90% of the population.
Myself included.

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening -- similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale. — Xtrix

Back in the hippie sixties, the prophecy of a new awakening was called the Age of Aquarius : a new astrological cycle of peace & love. Thus began a long slow process of Consciousness Raising. And in the eighties, physicist Fritjof Capra wrote a book entitled The Turning Point. He called on scientists to make it happen : "to round the great turn from hard, mechanistic, reductionist science to soft, organic, systems-view science". Then in 2000, Malcom Gladwell wrote The Tipping Point, which described the viral spread of memes, hopefully, as a "social epidemic" of new thinking. Now, after years of promoting the meme of Global Warming -- which at first was misunderstood as only a matter of temperature -- the "problem" of Ecological Climate Change is widespread in the western world. But still, we look around and think : "why haven't we yet reached the promised peak of the tipping point, that heralds a New Awakening".

Practically speaking, I would guess that most Tipping Points in history were not necessarily a sudden dramatic turn of events, but a gradual evolution from an old worldview to a newer perspective. Hegel's Dialectic made the twists & turns of history sound like a neck-jerking experience of zigs & zags. But in retrospect, it often took centuries for an old epoch to be transformed into something recognizable as a new era. For example, it took three centuries for the "religious conversion" of Christianity, from a minor Jewish sect into a global imperial religion. So, if you look at the world from a broader evolutionary perspective, maybe you will see a, volatile but gradual, conversion from "dark ages" to "enlightenment", that has not yet reached perfection. But then, according to Hegel, it never does -- just Yinning & Yanging from Conservative to Liberal, and back again. Nevertheless, he was optimistic that the "spirit of history" would eventually evolve toward perfection at some future Omega Point. :cool:


http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

Will it happen? Is it happening already? I — Xtrix

If it happens, it will absorb all existing frameworks into itself, as Christianity did. There would need to be a prophet. There would be various factions that eventually give way to one dominant outlook, backed by military power.

The alternative is that we won't hang together as a species. We could start divergently evolving as each portion of the species adapts to its own piece of the changing environment.

Some portion might retain a high level of technology and eventually leave the planet.

At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening -- similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale. — Xtrix

I came of age in 1968, 'the year the world changed'. This idea was everywhere at that time, as Gnomon says above. I was convinced a completely new way of existence was coming into being.

It's difficult to relate to those who didn't go through it exactly how different everything seemed for that period But it lives on, through the IT revolution - many of the seminal founders, like Steve Jobs, and others, were very much part of that. The environmental movement and green left politics are a consequence also. Many elements of popular culture, diffuse but identifiable - ideas of higher consciousness, pluralism, the sexual revolution.

But the countervailing forces are also extremely powerful. The so-called conservative movement in the USA is deeply rooted in unawareness and psychopathology. But Western culture is also fundamentally resistant to the kinds of changes that are needed. It's a very complex problem, but one of the things that Western consumer culture is really good at, is making life comfortable for those who are lucky enough to be part of it. That also tends to mitigate against change.

I often feel as though there will be either a catastrophic change, or a huge shakeup, in the near future, due to our colliding with resource shortages and environmental change. But then, my father, in the 1970's, thought that by year 2000 the world was bound to be gripped by Malthusian problems and there would be global famine, and he was wrong about that. So I don't know. But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change.

I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that. — DingoJones

I think so too. But short of legalizing it all and then putting it in everyone's water, I don't know how long it'd take for enough people to do it, and what the results will be. I think it's one possible tool in a movement, like the 60s, but isn't necessarily a magic bullet in itself, if you take my meaning.

What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero?
— Xtrix

Good question.

I think what can be said for sure is that communism can't be the answer. Environmental pollution was appalling in the Soviet Union and continues to be a huge problem in China which is ruled by the Communist Party.

Capitalism also seems to create some problems. — Apollodorus

I don't think communism is the solution either, but capitalism hasn't simply created some problems in my view -- it is the main driver of this problem. Not because we need fossil fuels for transportation and plastics and whatnot, but because it is fundamentally a system based on greed, on profit. If that's the objective of this game, then it really shouldn't be a wonder why we haven't long ago left fossil fuels behind -- given that we already have solutions. Mostly it's come down to money and the power of the fossil fuel industry to deliberately sow confusion and to lobby to prevent legislation, regulation, or budgeting to promote renewables (including nuclear).

So perhaps the answer is a "better" capitalism -- which has been tried and which has given better results than the neoliberal version -- or essentially no capitalism at all. But even if it's the latter case, it's still not a matter of capitalism vs. communism as the only choices.

I suspect that the very real problem of social alienation is the biggest culprit here, preventing people from seeing how masses can change laws to attain a more just future. — Manuel

I think this is probably correct, yes. A huge factor. That social alienation, passivity, apathy, or hopelessness themselves are what I mean by an "awakening" too -- waking us all from that state of mind.

The only thing that seems to me plausible is to have people focus on one concrete project related to these issues, say, closing one pipeline or reducing the budget of the military a little in a certain project. — Manuel

I think this is true too. Gotta only act locally -- put your head down and get to work where you are. Talking about this with others is key -- spreading awareness. It really is the issue of our time.

Now, after years of promoting the meme of Global Warming -- which at first was misunderstood as only a matter of temperature -- the "problem" of Ecological Climate Change is widespread in the western world. But still, we look around and think : "why haven't we yet reached the promised peak of the tipping point, that heralds a New Awakening". — Gnomon

Why is "problem" in quotation marks? And what do you mean by "promised peak of the tipping point" in this context? Because it seems to me you're confusing climate tipping points with what I'm talking, which is a change in perspective.

I'm really not sure what you're driving at with these examples.

If it happens, it will absorb all existing frameworks into itself, as Christianity did. — frank

Maybe. I think what is really needed is to simply recognize what's really happening. That's easier said than done, although it's not complicated stuff once it's pointed out to you. We're heading for suicide, and we need to do something about it, and no one seems to be taking it seriously enough. In that situation, where people are existentially wrong about things, it's hard to see what else can save us besides a religious-like awakening. We all seem so stuck in business-as-usual, with our heads down in our phones, it's hard to imagine an alternative. I think the only way that happens is through what the Christians did: evangelizing. Spreading the word, living by example, etc. The way any religion or philosophy spreads. We need that -- minus the religion and philosophy labels. We simply need a new way of seeing and thinking.

But the countervailing forces are also extremely powerful. The so-called conservative movement in the USA is deeply rooted in unawareness and psychopathology. But Western culture is also fundamentally resistant to the kinds of changes that are needed. It's a very complex problem, but one of the things that Western consumer culture is really good at, is making life comfortable for those who are lucky enough to be part of it. That also tends to mitigate against change. — Wayfarer

Very true. I think there are deeply embedded reasons for why we're heading to suicide, and they lie in Western history and culture -- and therefore in many ways in Christianity and science, which are both nihilistic (channelling Nietzsche here). We can also point to the economic system of capitalism that rose from Western soil and the technology that's arisen from Western science -- from the industrial revolution to the current information age. It's all connected, but I think Nietzsche was on to something with his analysis of European values and his warnings about nihilism.

Maybe one hope is the East, so at this point China. But even they are capitalists now, and are in fact outperforming the capitalists. That doesn't leave us much hope, short of a complete re-orientation or as Kuhn put it a "paradigm shift," in this case a spiritual one.

I often feel as though there will be either a catastrophic change, or a huge shakeup, in the near future, due to our colliding with resource shortages and environmental change. But then, my father, in the 1970's, thought that by year 2000 the world was bound to be gripped by Malthusian problems and there would be global famine, and he was wrong about that. So I don't know. But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change. — Wayfarer

Here's the thing that's strange: what if your father was RIGHT? He could have very well been. "Well it didn't happen" people often say if negative predictions don't come true, but we ignore the fact that these warnings changed things. To me it's like saying "The asteroid didn't hit earth -- so much for all those alarmists!"

We do know what's going to happen: we're dead. But that's *if* we don't do anything. We can't wait around and see if the scientists all have it wrong; they either do or we're toast. There's a third option: do things now to prevent it from happening.

I'm sure you take my point, but I felt it worth pointing out.

But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change. — Wayfarer

Exactly. Such an enormous shift of consciousness that one can only compare it to religion.

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us."

what if your father was RIGHT? — Xtrix

Well, yeah - my dad wasn't just any dad - he was a senior medical consultant to the WHO on population control. He worked in Geneva during the early 70's and helped run congresses on population control in India. He was ob-gyn at the time of the introduction of the Pill - he read the Club of Rome reports which were published in the 60's, and very pessimistic.

I'm sure you take my point, but I felt it worth pointing out. — Xtrix

Sure do.

Such an enormous shift of consciousness that one can only compare it to religion. — Xtrix

Well that actually drove some of the 60's counter-culture. You may not recall the Whole Earth Catalog, but it was very much about that. Another set of books that deeply influenced me back then were Theodore Roszak's books, Making of a Counter Culture and Where the Wasteland Ends. Many of the sixties idealists were deeply into those ideas, but they were always very niche in their appeal. Maybe their time will come, too. It should! (Actually, have a look at some of the essays on David Loy's site, https://www.davidloy.org/articles.html - his writings on ecological economics are really good. )

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us." — Xtrix

Or Kurtzweil + Brin: Only a "singularity" can "uplift" us.

Back in the day we used to call this class consciousness. Now I guess it's got to be translated into some ephemeral existential stuff to gain traction.

I should resist. I'm done. There's no hope. I've explained - from philosophical justification through to the specific technologies that need to be applied, how we might agree to do what's necessary to a prosperous and sustainable future, and been ignored.

Humankind has a blind-spot because you believe religious, political and economic ideology describes the world, you can't even 'see' a scientific understanding of reality.

You don't appreciate that the science is true of reality, relative to the ideology - which is all just made up. You believe ideology, because you draw your identities and purposes from it. The means to secure a prosperous sustainable future is externalised by your ideological worldviews; by your very identities, and not even the supposed philosophers here can bare to look beyond.

In scientific and technological terms, it's not difficult to secure a prosperous and sustainable future. Instead, this:

I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. — Wayfarer

I've explained why this is wrong. It leads to authoritarian government imposing poverty forever after for the sake of sustainability. It will not work; not least because poor people breed more - and as such implies ever less resources, shared between ever more people.

It's a simple matter of physics that we need massively more energy - not less! A future with less energy spent on it will be worse - in every way. Civilisation is a designed structure - constantly falling apart due to entropy, and constantly maintained through the expenditure of energy. Without the energy to spend, things will just fall apart.

The energy we need is there, beneath our feet - a huge ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; a virtually limitless source of clean energy, we could harness to meet and exceed our current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle. With magma energy, we could transcend the limits to resources equation - and make the deserts bloom if we so chose.

Why is "problem" in quotation marks? And what do you mean by "promised peak of the tipping point" in this context? Because it seems to me you're confusing climate tipping points with what I'm talking, which is a change in perspective. — Xtrix

If you will read the post slowly, you might catch the point of putting "problem" in quotes. Here's a hint : every generation has faced the same general "problem". The attempt to raise consciousness of the dangers of Climate Change is just one more of society's challenges that requires a "change in perspective". But, don't worry, the worldview problem of previous generations tends be forgotten by the current generation, as we face the same viewpoint "problem" under a new name. :smile:

Maybe. I think what is really needed is to simply recognize what's really happening. That's easier said than done, although it's not complicated stuff once it's pointed out to you. We're heading for suicide, — Xtrix

There's pretty widespread recognition of the problem. China is building nuclear power plants, which is what we all should be doing.

It's pretty normal for humans to wait until the shit hits the fan to act.

The energy we need is there, beneath our feet - a huge ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; a virtually limitless source of clean energy, we could harness to meet and exceed our current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle. With magma energy, we could transcend the limits to resources equation - and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. — counterpunch

Do you have any citations for that? Are there scientists lobbying for it, or interest groups? I never read anything about it in the media, or not that I notice, so I'm wondering if it does have the transformative potential you claim it does.

Just to add, we have little time to do something big:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/06/23/climate-change-future-impact-life-earth-united-nations/5326888001/

I've actually wondered about the role of drugs. Look at the movements of the 1960s and look at what drugs were being used there versus say the 1980s. I personally think there's a lot to gain from psychedelic substances. — Xtrix

The idea that dosing world leaders with lsd would lead to peace was popular within the counterculture and one that lTimothy Leary fervently believed in. In fact, he thought that every major advance in human culture was associated with with use of a drug of some kind.
He found , however, that chemicals alone do not determine imagination. In his autobiography he recounted the story of trying to turn on Jack Kerouac and Arthur Koestler, only to be disappointed by their underwhelming reaction to the lsd experience.

In his autobiography he recounted the story of trying to turn on Jack Kerouac and Arthur Koestler, only to be disappointed by their underwhelming reaction to the lsd experience. — Joshs

That's interesting, thanks for sharing. But I can't say I'm suprised.

How can people really expect drugs to change people so drastically? It's quite naïve to assume that just because one has had a deep experience, others will too. I know it's a different kind of drug, but just look at how people react to alcohol. You get everything out of that: happy, depressive, violent, funny, etc.

The problem is deeper than that, I think.

Well that actually drove some of the 60's counter-culture. You may not recall the Whole Earth Catalog, but it was very much about that. Another set of books that deeply influenced me back then were Theodore Roszak's books, Making of a Counter Culture and Where the Wasteland Ends. Many of the sixties idealists were deeply into those ideas, but they were always very niche in their appeal. Maybe their time will come, too. It should! (Actually, have a look at some of the essays on David Loy's site, https://www.davidloy.org/articles.html - his writings on ecological economics are really good. ) — Wayfarer

Thank you, I will.

Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us."
— Xtrix
Or Kurtzweil + Brin: Only a "singularity" can "uplift" us. — 180 Proof

I can't say I know who those people are, or what that means.

I should resist. I'm done. There's no hope. I've explained - from philosophical justification through to the specific technologies that need to be applied, how we might agree to do what's necessary to a prosperous and sustainable future, and been ignored. — counterpunch

Sorry to hear that, but defeatism guarantees the worst.

Back in the day we used to call this class consciousness. Now I guess it's got to be translated into some ephemeral existential stuff to gain traction. — StreetlightX

I would include class consciousness as a particularly important type of awakening. Given capitalism is basically a religion, to raise this consciousness would be on par with a religious conversion.

I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence.
— Wayfarer

I've explained why this is wrong. It leads to authoritarian government imposing poverty forever after for the sake of sustainability. — counterpunch

Such nonsense.

If you will read the post slowly, you might catch the point of putting "problem" in quotes. Here's a hint : every generation has faced the same general "problem". — Gnomon

No, they haven't. The problems we currently face are unparalleled. With the exception of nuclear weapons, we're in uncharted territory.

There's pretty widespread recognition of the problem. China is building nuclear power plants, which is what we all should be doing. — frank

They're also building coal plants. Nuclear power is a good option, but not the only one. It's a favorite of Republicans because it doesn't threaten their fossil fuel interests. But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die. We have a couple decades to decide, maybe less.

The energy is there; it's just a matter of tapping into it safely, at a sufficiently high temperature, and at a workable and affordable depth for drilling - which in turn will be a matter of identifying specific geological formations. I haven't read any studies on exploiting very high temperature geothermal close to volcanic features.

Geothermal energy in Iceland and New Zealand harnesses heat from volcanic springs - with a maximum temperature, even under pressure - of 150'C ish. I'm looking for 700'C minimum - and believe there's cubic miles upon cubic miles of rock heated to that temperature, it would be possible to drill through.

There are questions of materials science - because the boreholes need to be lined with pipes. These need to be super-smooth on the inside, and be able to stand heat and pressure. So, there's a lot to work out. It is to be done; but there are around 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire alone.

Converting heat into electricity is well established technology - as is converting electrical energy into hydrogen fuel for transport. Given a running start, I could easily foresee fleets of hydrogen powered tankers delivering clean fuel all around the world.

so I'm wondering if it does have the transformative potential you claim it does. — Wayfarer

Oddly, the fact that "no one else thinks that" - to paraphrase your meaning, has absolutely no bearing whatever on my opinion that the technology is viable, and that a massive input of clean energy, particularly now - would be transformative. I can think of nothing more hopeful than a viable plan to overcome climate change.

He found , however, that chemicals alone do not determine imagination. In his autobiography he recounted the story of trying to turn on Jack Kerouac and Arthur Koestler, only to be disappointed by their underwhelming reaction to the lsd experience. — Joshs

Yeah, I don't think it's simply a matter of taking a drug. But they've also been shown to be very beneficial in therapeutic settings -- MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc -- and so can be a helpful tool to break people out of their usual mental and behavioral patterns. Even marijuana can have that effect. But it all depends on the setting and the person taking it, their expectations and disposition.

As I said before, putting LSD in the water isn't the answer to anything.

I can think of nothing more hopeful than a viable plan to overcome climate change. — counterpunch

Well, sure, but someone being enthusiastic about it does not constitute a viable plan, unless you're in a position do something about it.

//I've googled it. What I appear to find is that geothermal energy is indeed an energy source, has some pros, some cons, is location dependent, is expensive. Nothing that says geothermal energy is the panacea for all the world's energy problems. //

But they've also been shown to be very beneficial in therapeutic settings -- MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc -- and so can be a helpful tool to break people out of their usual mental and behavioral patterns. — Xtrix

I had such experiences. They are truly mind- and eye-opening. Best to keep shtum, though - society takes a dim view. Besides, those days are long gone, for me anyway.

I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.
— DingoJones

I think so too. But short of legalizing it all and then putting it in everyone's water, I don't know how long it'd take for enough people to do it, and what the results will be. — Xtrix

Talk about yet another form of authoritarianism! Mandatory drugging!

One approach would be to divorce the materialist mindset from the prevailing materialist worldview. Because, materialists are materialistic. Else have no cogent reason not to be. But, yes, this is unfair: “Greed is good!” is nowadays a staple implicit slogan for most JC fanatics as well, to name just one religious group among many. Because, like, that’s what JC was teaching, right? Meanwhile, the Flynn effect appears to have started reversing since the about the mid-1990s. But our politicians are probably unconcerned about this because unintelligent/uneducated populaces are easier to manipulate and thereby control, bringing in more profits to boot. Still, it does bum me out personally, in part because I blame this reversal on why I don’t like today’s music as much.

OK, blowing off a wee bit of steam as diplomatically as I could. Less juvenilely, I don’t believe the end of the human species is near. But I do believe that when you place fire at people’s feet they start moving. Global warming will do this. Our current economic globalization will be followed by political globalization, if for no other reason, to govern cash flows. My leading concern as regards the humanity I’m a part of (regardless of how many billions it will consist of) is whether it will result in a globalized 1984 or a globalized republic aiming toward a non-hyperbolic global democracy. The latter I know will be laughed at by many. And for me this laughter ties into my juvenilely written portion above. Hence my concern.

For me, the leading problem is one of values held and aspired toward by the majority of humans inhabiting this earth: both those in power and those who grant them their power. And aims such as those of love, peace, and understanding cannot be obtained by coercion. (Caveat: I’m by now jaded as hell myself.)

But yea, a global awakening: good stuff that I’m all for.

ps. Haven't done hallucinogens, but I have read "Naked Lunch".

But then we're in a Mad Max territory. — Manuel

In their minds, many people already seem to be firmly in Mad Max territory anyway. They have a "survival of the fittest" and "life is a struggle for survival" mentality already, even when externally they seem like relatively peaceful members of the (upper) middle class or those aspiring to be so. It's why threats of the negative consequences of global warming, pollution, depletion of natural resources have no effect on them: it's the default they live in in their minds anyway. By pointing those out to them, you're not telling them anything new. If they seem like they don't care or like they're in denial, that has to do only with how they handle that particular conversation with you, but it doesn't accurately reflect their state of mind.

Rather, the actual problem is that psychology and our official notions of normalcy have been written by closet hippies.

ps. Haven't done hallucinogens, but I have read "Naked Lunch". — javra

In that case you’re likely to know the origin of the name of my favourite band.