What counts as ultra-processed? — Mikie

https://health.clevelandclinic.org/ultra-processed-foods

An example list by ChatGPT:

Chicken nuggets
Frozen meals
Hot dogs
Packaged soups
Potato chips
Soft drinks
Sweetened breakfast cereals
Packaged bread and buns
Industrial pastries and cakes
Pre-packaged pies and pasta dishes
Margarine and spreads
Ice cream and dairy-based desserts
Processed cheese products
Flavored milk drinks
Instant noodles and soups
Processed meats such as sausages, salami, and bacon
Microwave popcorn
Store-bought cookies and biscuits
Candy bars
Artificially sweetened beverages
Flavored yogurts high in sugar
Ready-to-eat snacks like pretzels and flavored crackers

I avoid ultra processed food and take care with good quality sources for the food I eat.

England is a perfect example of what happens when ultra processed food has been mainstreamed so hard that it starts to kill its citizens. Avoid ultra processed food at all costs.

An argument is the presenting of reasons/evidence for a claim or conclusion. Really that simple. — Mikie

I rarely see people actually doing this in here. It's more common than in other places online, but it's still mostly anecdotal and emotional reasoning and when questioned they tantrum because what they were so convinced of in their own mind ended up going through normal scrutiny.

I think there's a point in not just focusing on making a proper argument. In order for a philosophical discussion to take place, people need to abandon their emotions about their argument and treat it as someone else's argument. Detachement to ones ideas is the only way to not fall into bias and fallacy.

So, start out with the argument, and then treat any following discussion in which people object to it as you yourself being part of them discussing someone else's idea. As soon as the argument is presented, don't act as if you own it or else you will start protecting it with your life.

I'm often calling out fallacies and biases, but it's because they're so common among people who aren't well versed in how to rationally treat their own convictions with detachement. A core tenet in philosophy is to question yourself as part of the scrutiny of a formed idea, but most of the time people are just planting their concepts and ideas as flags on a battlefield before going to war for that flag.

But I agree that some are sloppy in their use of calling out fallacies and biases. Many call out fallacies that aren't fallacies, lacking knowledge of what certain fallacies really are and just wave it around as a shield to any form of scrutiny. But generally, the same people doing that are also the ones committing most of the fallacies themselves.

The main problem on this forum is rather that when people create their arguments, they aren't actually presenting any evidence or rational logic behind their reasoning. They cook up whatever they believe is evidence and then try to demand it be enough to prove their point, ending up going in circles saying "I've already presented the evidence".

Generally, a majority of people do not have the necessary knowledge of how to make actual arguments or how to decode arguments. So most people will just go around in circles, failing to grow their knowledge even in a place dedicated to grow knowledge.

rumpism is an authoritarian[a] political movement that follows the political ideologies associated with Donald Trump and his political base[32][33] incorporating ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism.b] Trumpist rhetoric heavily features anti-immigrant,[43] xenophobic,[44] nativist,[45] and racist attacks against minority groups.[46][47] Other identified aspects include conspiracist,[48][49] isolationist,[45][50] Christian nationalist,[51] protectionist,[52][53] anti-feminist,[17][13] and anti-LGBT[54] beliefs. Trumpists and Trumpians are terms that refer to individuals exhibiting its characteristics. — Benkei

Careful so you don't step on someone's free speech by labeling them as something they say they definitely aren't while some apologist calls you out for calling them stupid racists rather than trying to bridge the societal gaps by giving them the intellectual respect they themselves demand to deserve.

Isn't your title "Are all living things conscious?" a question? And isn't my answer congruent with it? — Alkis Piskas

Are you conscious and aware of the fact that I didn't create this thread and that the title question isn't mine? :sweat:

Yes, all. Including organisms and plants. They all perceive and react to their environment. Because they all want to survive. And multiply. — Alkis Piskas

Not sure why you quoted me with the title of the thread, but consciousness require awareness. It doesn't require self-awareness, but awareness of the processes that occurs to them and reactions by them. A rock isn't measurably aware of the hammer hitting it, a bug is.

But I still don't know what you are actually answering to or why you quoted the thread's title as if I asked it?

I'm not as concerned with Trump winning the election as I am with him losing the vote count. He has been busy keeping his MAGA base stirred up, and if he loses he might incite them to disrupt procedures at the Capital and overturn the presidency by force of arms, not simply wandering the Halls of Congress. — jgill

So all the potential consequences with him in power during a time of extreme global unrest due to both Russia and China is not a larger concern than some backwards MAGA cult members mounting a real attack that would quickly be fought back and at the same time cement the need to reshape politics into a form that prevents things like this to ever happen again?

Trump is right about one thing with his "bloodbath" rhetoric though; if he and his followers take things too far, it will tip the scales of society's tolerance of them so far into the negative that they will be branded a terrorist group and if someone wears a MAGA hat it won't end well. Most of these people are gullible idiots, but if consequences for affiliation with MAGA becomes too negative, they will quickly break down into very obscure smaller groups of fanatics.

I can't see how any of this would end well for Trump, his closest people and his followers. With luck, everything fizzles out over the years, but if Trump and his followers take things too far, then they will quickly realize that there are far more people on the good side who won't tolerate this bullshit.

Oh if only I could find the right way to talk. 'Crisis' good, 'catastrophe' bad; 'tipping point' good, 'point of no return' bad; 'Houston we have a problem', good, 'The rocket has exploded' bad.

The main thing is to get the talk nuanced just so, and then everyone will act and no one will despair. Or possibly not. — unenlightened

Language matter, especially in media headlines for the part of the masses who are stupid enough to only read the headlines; but who carry enough democratic power to vote people into power who actively act against mitigation strategies.

Modern capitalism has pushed media in many nations to compete in the attention economy of who can write in the most bold, underlined ALL CAPS text ending with the most exclamation marks; for the purpose of reaching the absolute most extreme eye catching DOOM rhetoric possible.

Ignoring how such media behavior affect the population who aren't intellectual enough to do anything but follow the most shallow interpretation of reality is to ignore how group think and cult mentality shape and form the upper most deciding factors of democratic elections.

Today, almost every election balances right at the mid point between two sides and elections become essentially decided by a very small group of people who are pushed and pulled by people in power using any kind of algorithmic weapon they can muster.

In the end, the intellectual and educated masses stand firm on each side in an election and has to hope that their side had the highest marketing budget to sway that sheep herd in the middle towards their direction.

If anyone calls that kind of "democracy" our peak of society and spearhead of civilisation, they're delusional. Democracy today is just a sports game of sheep herding into winning and gaining power for the next four years. It's not about what's good for society or about solutions to problems.

So, language matter; language can sway that middle herd towards or away from mitigation strategies. But since commercial media isn't playing a game of morality or truth, but rather profit, the truth gets pushed to the small fine writing underneath the profit-gaining headlines, and the headlines always focus on doom, it's what sells the most ads and grabs the most attention, and attention is today's most valuable currency, more precious than saving the world.

Narcissus gazing into his reflection in the water; so mesmerized that he can't hear the deadly tsunami up the river.

Yes, that's my point, the threat is real, the science is real, but the language used in media play into an ideal of everything being too late, when it's not. Or rather, the complexity gets lost and the doomer climate science deniers just point towards singular words as sources and reasons for their cause.

We already had to change using the term "climate change" to "climate crisis" as deniers leaned into arguments about the "change" having happened before in earth's history and there's no proof for human actions being the reason. So changing it to "climate crisis" have helped push back against those kinds of stupid arguments from them. And now when most of them have shifted into acknowledging human causes, but changed the narrative into that we're doomed so there's no point in changing, then we need to adjust the language to push back against that kind of doomer rhetoric.

Maybe push terms like "mitigation efforts" and "mitigation strategies" into the mainstream in order to push the concept that it's not too late and there's still time to do stuff. That way the debate instead goes into a debate against deniers and doomers with the frame of reference being a question of "why would you oppose mitigating the effects of this crisis?"

Change in language works best on people who can't understand information on their own and who instead rely on other authorities to form opinions (authority in terms of group think clusters and populistic influencers pushing their agendas rather than upholding facts).

Since we have the problem of these people having enough democratic power to push elections in the direction of leaders who would halt mitigation strategies, then the only democratic strategy to use is rhetoric to persuade them.

The other option is for UN to declare a form of global marshal law on the topic of climate change and that no democratic nation can oppose or work against global mitigation strategies. But I doubt UN can have enough power to shift anything through that.

I think one error that media and climate scientists make when trying to communicate the problems is to use terms like "point of no return". I think this has been negatively helping the legitimizing of the shifting goal posts for climate science denier's "doomer stance" of "yes, the climate is shifting and yes we might be responsible but there's no point in doing anything since we're already doomed".

If we can leave out terms like "point of no return", we won't play into their newest but equally stupid position against mitigation projects.

So if an independent candidate DID win (it's a thought-experiment, not an actual prediction) he or she would have to turn to the Democrats because the Republicans can't manage a piss-up in a brewery. — Wayfarer

I don't think any independent candidate would win, but they would split the votes so much if there were three options available that the democrats would win simply by the lack of enough votes on either side of the Republicans.

However, if, by some miracle, a stable Republican outlier wins instead as an independent, I think that she would gather everyone siding with the Lincoln project and build up a proper party through them. And they might even push out many of the MAGA cult members infesting the other halls of power in congress over time.

Regardless, I think the only way out and away from Trumpism is to have an independent option during election. Too many Republicans who hate Trump hate the Democrats more and they would vote for the independent voice and drag all the ones who's opting out entirely. It would divide the Republicans, but the smart ones would know it's their only option forward as the MAGA cult could very well spell the end for the Republican party as a whole. Soon or later the normal Republicans will have to take some home cleaning action. It's like they've been infested by cockroaches and have given up trying to solve the issue, but if they grow into too much of a problem they will have to start stomping them out and call exterminators.

which party would she be more likely to be able to negotiate policies with, in light of the dysfunction that characterises the MAGA-GOP? — Wayfarer

I'm not entirely sure how the details of these things go, but wouldn't she align with the Lincon Project and draw together the Republicans who don't want to be part of the MAGA cult?

Would it be so bold as to predict that at some point, the Republican party will split and the new faction will be called "New Republicans" or something like "True Republicans" or similar? Gathering momentum among normal people who usually vote Republican. That they would acknowledge that it's problematic to gain traction at this time in history, but that their goal is to build up a sense of trust that voters will get a stable Republican party by voting for them and their internal goal is to clean house and rid themselves of any MAGA supporters. That way, the MAGA cult will probably soon evaporate since they cannot get enough traction by numbers alone and the gullible cult folks who soon get tired of not being represented will move on and just vote for the new republican party while the core MAGA cult will just gather together in some remote location and shoot beer cans or whatever mindless trash they find meaningful.

Yes, that's a good video on what's going on right now. Maybe if the people who can still use their brains could stop focusing on spending their time on so much trash culture and lazy attitudes towards politics and philosophical thought; they might be able to help change the course instead. But people aren't interested, even if they're on the right side of history.

The problem isn't really the climate deniers or the climate doomers, they're mostly just irrelevant since they're not nearly enough of a democratic force to stand in the way of necessary change. Or, that's how it should be at least. The problem is that democracies are tilted to such an extreme balance between decent and absolute trash that they've become relevant without really being a large democratic force; all because the rest of society consist of lazy people who "can't find the time to involve themselves in these issues".

It's this lazy attitude, this "I don't have time to think about..." that is the real problem. There's not enough demand on politicians and parties, so politicians fall back into playing into populism in order to keep their power.

People who acknowledge the problem and agree with the need for solutions, still just don't give a shit about voting for those who actually push for necessary change and they don't seem to care to speak up when necessary.

This is why shifting the social sphere into climate denying and doomerism should be considered immoral. Something equivalent of being a racist, spitting on the poor, abusive behavior etc. Society needs to change towards treating people who talk and act within such attitudes to be unwelcomed, totally ok to be fired from jobs, kicked out of restaurants, unwanted in social situations etc. And if someone would talk like that in media it should be equivalent of uttering the n-word in public; not as an opinion that's treated equal to everything else.

If so, if pushed in that direction of social culture in society, it would gather a greater momentum towards action. It would lead to politicians being careful not to cater to such voices and the social consequences would be too severe for people to go around shouting such opinions and statements.

Since the consequences of not doing anything to mitigate climate chance are so far away in time, we need to have consequences here and now that people want to avoid. Producing a culture of more severe negative social consequences as direct results of promoting or uttering climate denial and doomerism would help change the lazy attitude into being more active and proactive. It would force people to be more verbal in order to keep their social moral status and in doing so keep the focus on working towards solutions higher on the list for politicians as it's part of the cultural atmosphere they want to cater to in order to gain votes.

Right now, people who, in social situations, talk a lot about climate change and the required need for solutions are often viewed as "bad at parties", while people who are deniers or doomers just get eyeroll reactions. That makes the issues and the topic dead in politics and something left for Reddit brawls, rather than part of core societal topics. Forcing a harsher moral environment around the topic could push people to "show their moral stance" more openly since they surely don't want to be viewed as possible deniers or doomers.

If people can't take actions on their own, then make it customary immoral not to. The sad truth is that status and social structures are more important for common people than saving the planet. And so shaping a social construct of morality around the subject into being more extreme could help steer the ship in a better direction faster.

Why not a Scandinavian country instead? If you want a better and working socialistic environment, then England doesn't seem like the best choice?

"It's freedom of speech"

I’m old enough to see it in my own life. It’s not only technology but a decline of spirituality — one aspect being religion. So in a sense one major contributing factor is a change in philosophy.

An interesting example is looking at the arts — movies, television, music. Compare Woodstock 1969 to Woodstock 1999. That alone says it all. — Mikie

I think the major part has to do with disconnection to others. With technology and internet we've increased our ability to communicate, but we are disconnected to the physical form of communication. There's tons of studies on the importance of physical connection, being in the room with other people. It's been something very much experienced coming out of the pandemic, how mental health drastically improves as soon as people started physically seeing each other again.

We're blasted by information in our alone time, and the information is "dead". Like this text, like all text on this forum, it is a dead representation of who the people writing here are as a whole. If we all gathered and met up, the discussions would look very different, but it would also have a dimension of emotion that isn't seen online. Respect is higher when facing each other talking.

So it's not really about just "meeting up", it's about the quality of interaction that is lost online. Humans are built to interact through micro-expressions, body language, tonality in voice. While we don't need it all the time, the dominance of online communication over the physical have led to a change in behavior.

Together with the focus on individuality, the neoliberal ideology of the self, it has skewed the perspective people have of their ego.

What we need more today than ever is social groups not just meeting, but building something together within the physical realm. A step back from the individual perspective, the focus on the ego and into a collective realm in which social groups build something together.

There's no surprise that there's been a rise in isolated groups over the years; stronger polarization between different ideas and ideologies. The lack of a sense of collective as a society has pushed people into other forms of gatherings and without careful guidance formed into destructive ones like MAGA, incel communities, ethnic groups divided away from multicultural collaboration and into hostility against other groups etc We've even seen it in the extreme ways that political parties have generated followers that are less open to actual politics in which a party in parlaments collaborate with a "give and take" structure towards other opposing parties. Previously, political parties collaborated all over the spectrum with the intent of representing their voters wills and needs in the halls of power. Now, they only try to play a political game without any real vision and in closed rooms, scheming stronger ill-willed strategies against other opposing political parties; everything is about sabotaging others party politics than a give and take strategy for progress and problem solving.

What all of this shows is that while the neoliberal individuality have focused on the ego, that ego still craves the social realm, but with a lack of a collective dimension it clusters together with whatever rhymes with that specific ego and the group behaves outwards with hostility as the single individual ego does at its core.

It also shows that the individual craves something to be passionate about, and without a larger collective vision, they can only turn to these minor ones and double down on them. As you mentioned, the decline in spirituality and religion has created a void in the larger collective sense.

But I believe that the solution should be to have something that connects people within the context of a larger collective aspiration. We need a form of goal for humanity as a whole. Something that feels like we're heading somewhere, without necessarily having to do with religion. We need something that people feel is something we build together and can collaborate within.

The major obstacles is that the largest policies today are controlled by corporations who's interest is in profit. That's nothing that can be collectively gathered around.

We therefore need a shift towards a collective goal that we can all build together. Something we can all believe in is the right path forward for humanity. Something that gathers people across borders and breaking away from capitalistic profit seeking.

One such project, I would say, is building a new form of living that mitigates climate change. That project demands collaboration from all people and a dismantle of the selfish individuality that is toxic to us. Figuring that out requires innovations, engineers, philosophers, builders, collaboration across industries and different people. Across borders, nationalities and ethnicities.

It could be such a projects that we collectively gather around to achieve together, but for that we need to remove power from those holding us back from doing so. We need to stop being careless with who we vote for, who we support and what industries we give our money to. We need to stop our cognitively biased rhetoric that's only there to hide our laziness and find a goal and vision for a future with this problem fixed and work towards it, gathering people around us for it.

When you look at Woodstock 69 as you mentioned, the one thing that is key is that they were a social group who focused on the good of the collective rather than the expression of the individual. And the LSD helped with a lot of ego death that infused such mentality even further.

We need more ego death, more of a large collective goal or spirit (without it having to be religion), and we need projects and visions as a collective to focus on. Solving world problems and returning to a sense of collective achievements, like returning to looking up at the stars and dreaming of new human achievements in exploration and reaching new heights as a species.

People underestimate the importance of such dreams. The constant complain against those who dream of things like space exploration is that we should focus on stuff like ending poverty instead, but they're missing the point of what such dreams do to us. Let's say we end poverty.... and then what? The emptiness of just existing without a sense of purpose kills people far more than a lack of food, because it kills the mind and makes us empty bodies; husks mindlessly moving around, acting out confused emotions in the lack of a path forward.

We need to dream collectively, we need to collaborate more as a collective and we need to kill the ego. That's the difference between Woodstock 69 and 99.

And of course... republicans. Can we actually just conclude them to be collectively stupid? Like, what more evidence do we need?

The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian. — Punshhh

It's primarily industries that needs to be changed by force. Regular people will surely hate the consequences of the industry changes, but new industries will pop up that can follow the new path long before people start to vote for dictators. Like, the least they can do is to tax carbon emissions, and do it a lot. Then use the money as direct funds towards engineering solutions for mitigation.

Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word. — Punshhh

Education doesn't seem to help much for those last percentages of people who are enough to screw up elections with candidates who oppose green industries.

You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now — Punshhh

It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.

It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems. — Punshhh

Moving back into oil just to see the entire world collapse is just stupid as a strategy. Just burn the oil industry (not literally). Crack down on the corrupted politicians getting money from it, do it by force if needed. Block oil entirely or partially (to have transportation for the build up of green replacements.

People buy what is on the market, so remove oil-driven products from the market. Have the governments put a ban on new gas cars earlier than we have now. If they bitch about it and try something as a blow back, put them in jail.

It's basically war against the climate change consequences and there's traitors walking about.

The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves. — Punshhh

Billions against a fortress? Politicians in high places will soon enough be toppled if that would ever happen. Desperation force people into the only option they have, and getting into revolutionary mode à la France can move mountains.

I just wish people would argue for more serious push against the oil industry than has been done so far. There are just too many politicians in the pockets of the global oil industry, and the politicians who are directly owning their part of the oil industry need to be starved out of power. Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.

But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia. — Punshhh

Yes, the system itself is the problem and people rely on the system too much. For this to be fixed, we need to break the system, even if that has to be healed afterwards. The consequences of breaking its stability will be far less than that of taking too long to change course.

Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial. — Punshhh

Activists in this are just as much morons as the deniers and oil chills. It's the other extreme end featuring people who can't handle the psychological stress, so they act out in desperation rather than rationality.

But the problem is that there's no time to play along as usual. I'm serious here, the largest contributors to emissions need to be put into such pressure that they collapse as economies if they don't change course. China for instance, is the worlds largest contributor to emissions. Their economy need to be crippled to the point they accept they have to change. And so does every nation who does so globally. The global economy will crash because of this, but it has to be done as money is the only thing that moves this world. The problem is that politicians in the world do not take action, they try to eat the cake and have it to, they can't turn their backs on voters who are deniers and who don't care about climate change, so they play it down; they do the absolute minimum required by COP and COP itself only arrive at minimal conclusions that scientists are criticizing being too little each time they gather.

If people think that such breaking of the system would lead to conflicts and war, yes, it might. But imagine a world with billions of people relocated and battling for resources during famine and societies in need to rebuild their infrastructure and housing due to shifting environmental needs. What wars would that generate?

What we as regular people can do is as I said, view all people who don't take this seriously as immoral people due to them downplaying the seriousness. There's a big difference between viewing them as having the wrong opinion and seeing them as immoral. The change produces a social change. The problem is that the realm and dimension of the consequences of passive behavior isn't communicated. The seriousness of collective passiveness is downplayed. If the link between being passive or dismissive of the problems and the consequences a few decades from now are established, then it would be easier to view this passivity as being immoral and these people as being immoral.

But we are still acting like it's just an opinion, like it's a behavior that's fine. It's like in the 40s and 50s and it's fine to be a racist. It's fine to divide people by color. And at some point it's not fine anymore and if you express racist opinions or behave like that in public you'll get punched in the face and people would cheer that on. That's the level of social behavior we need to be at in order to seriously pressure politicians and the public opinion. And even then it would be hard, seen as there's plenty of politicians who still win elections with downright outspoken racism. Even today that happens, but at least that power usually can't survive long if the social ideal is to punch a racist.

So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it. — Punshhh

We are not to weak to prevent it, we just need to do what it takes. When the pressure is on, people won't be weak, they will fight and kill for change. That's where we're heading if we're not acting now.

It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role. — Punshhh

Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.


I think the way you describe it is how many people view things, especially in places that may seem to be out of danger. But people don't realize that there is no such place. The changing climate collapse ecosystems and produce a cocktail effect of consequences, many unpredictable as we've witnessed already. This increase will more than likely happen in our lifetime. If people care for their children, then what future are they giving them? Putting blind folds on the kids, trying to soothe them into a belief that everything will be fine and then kicking them out into a world that is breaking apart?

Adults today are so inactive and passive that young teenagers have essentially given up. The depression around this subject among young people is so severe and their parents just don't seem to give a shit. It's appalling in my opinion.

And I actually don't see most people actually accepting how serious this problem is, or rather, they don't seem to accept just how serious this can become. I see most regular people as ignorant, putting on the blind folds and distracting themselves with mindless instagram reels. Essentially they have their head in the sand until the hurricane winds rip their bodies from their stuck heads. If they actually understood, they would speak more openly about it, but they don't, because it's socially awkward to do so, it's socially awkward to be angry about how things are. Changing that would make things go faster.

And one such change would be to draw a clear moral line between the active and the passive person. If the deniers and passive people are considered immoral, then people will start to express themselves much more on the matter. People will find it much less awkward to socially be outspoken about the issues. People will find it is moral to talk about solutions, to have it as a conversation starter.

People aren't talking right now, they are quiet.

How much further, how much does it take in order for regular people to stop voting for politicians who downplay the problems? How much further does it have to go in order for people to put pressure on world politics? How much further does it have to go in order for people to start talking about the issues much more openly?

I suspect that when the first bullet is fired from a guerilla or resistance group fighting for a piece of land because their own nation is uninhabitable; then people will realize just how dire the situation is. Then it would be such an illogical thing to say "go back to your own country" because they can't, and the number of people and military groups born out of such desperation will grow, and grow, and grow. And they will creep closer and closer and closer to the comfort of people's homes. Then, maybe, regular people will start to get the fucking point on how serious this thing is.

There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt. — Punshhh

A handfull enough to sway politics in favor of populist leaders who keep the necessary mitigation from happening in time.

The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough — Punshhh

Yes, as I said, that is the scenario if we fail to do something now. Or, we do what's necessary to not let millions die.

If it is immoral to let millions die and put the world into a economical and relocation crisis of historical proportions due to inaction, would it be more immoral to take away people's voting rights if they deny that actions need to be taken? Is that a level of cost to the world worth keeping their democratic votes, or is that just a good example of why Kantian ethics aren't enough to make moral sense in all situations? I sense that such things get people's blood pumping into slippery slope scenarios of totalitarian governments, but no, it's about one thing and one thing alone; getting on the right path to avoid disaster and in a battle for the health of the world and all people, that's requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power. The blame cannot be put onto the people as the people can only follow how society is structured. The only blame they can get is for who they put into power and everyone needs to be prepared for major economical turmoil as assets are relocated into solutions from the current non-solutions.

As scientists are witnessing more and more actual consequences of climate change, it is clear that the consequences are very underestimated. If this continues we actually don't know how severe it can get. An eco-system can absolutely survive, but in what state? Losing algae in the sea would produce another tipping point. And with collapses of certain groups of species it can lead to new forms of pathogens and invasive species that could cause new pandemics and a massive famine on a scale never before seen.

I don't think people really realize how delicate the balance of the world is. The economy is a good analogy for it. The most minor problem can cause extreme fluctuations of the global economical balance. The war in Ukraine and subsequent blockage of gas from Russia caused an energy crisis, which helped pushed us into a big inflationary spiral. The blockade of the Suez Canal alone was able to put the entire world into economical fragility. But it was the sum of the Ukraine war, the pandemic, the blockage, the energy crisis, the Chinese/Taiwan unrest that put the global economy into turmoil. Put into terms of the world's ecological balance and temperature, people underestimate what the change does to the planet. It's like people only think that the sea will rise and the warmest parts of the world will get slightly warmer. In Scandinavia, some people think it will be nice to grow more wine as the region gets warmer, like what the hell are they talking about? It's like people have an inability to actually extrapolate a logical overview of the consequences. If even scientists underestimate the damage, or by fear of being attacked by the idiots of society if they look like alarmists; then just imagine how bad the general population is at accurate predictions of the level of damage we face.

In my view, rip the fucking band-aid and then we can heal the world from that. It's much easier for everyone than trying to heal from a broken world.

Because you're sticking to your old guns. — baker

You only know the things I write here, you know nothing else. But you act upon such lack of knowledge and perform judgement. This is just a dishonest attempt at framing the other in a discussion as a form of ad hominem.

I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.

You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here. — baker

And you are too vague about your intentions as well as framing it in very odd rhetoric.

Once again, you do not know anything other than what you read of me here. As I've pointed out many times now; if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial.

So what efficiency are you talking about? Being efficient in achieving what exactly?

For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't. — baker

And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial.

If they are unable to understand that mitigation is still necessary so as to not completely ruin everything and that not acting will cause millions of deaths as a result, then they haven't really been convinced, they have only moved their goal posts of their denial towards a new position of defending their inaction and ignorance.

Why should the world cater to these people? Why should we continue wasting time trying to convince them and not just move on with the debate towards what solutions will work best?

But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet? — baker

By ignoring them and implementing changes to society anyway, yes, we will save millions and mitigate the worst damages. There's no time to build public opinion through convincing these people, it will be too late. The strategies need to circumvent slow progress, the damage of such rapid progress will be microscopic against the consequence of not doing so.

Treating these people as immoral is not an act of entitlement, it is an act of building a collective sense of morality that can drive changes in society. If it is considered moral to support actions taken to mitigate climate change and immoral not to, then it will use social structures to form public opinion rather than being dependent on uneducated or people unequipped to understand complex knowledge.

Structural racism have rarely been fought through educating racists to not support such structural racism; that does not work until they've instinctually already left the racist mindset. Instead it has been a moral dimension that's been most effective transforming society. Reshaping the idea of dividing people into being an immoral act at its core. Then, people don't have to understand any complex knowledge about a subject, they just have to accept the more instinctually programmed moral codes in the social structures they exist in. That's why I don't just call them uneducated, idiots or conspiratorial cultists, but also immoral people who support a destructive movement through inaction or active action against mitigation efforts.

View them as immoral people, just like racists, abusers and other immoral people. Don't act like they're just expressing some opinions that have some balanced value, because there's no such balance. It's like saying that a racist statement is just as morally acceptable as someone making a statement about love. It's not. Making statements that push public opinion towards ignorance about climate change is an immoral act that can with enough collective public drive cause delays that will kill millions. It is pushing dominos in a direction of pure horror and that is simply an immoral act.

I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies. — baker

You don't think this has been done for decades now? There's no time left to keep doing this. If we had 50 years more to slowly change people's mind, yes, but just look at how far anti-racism has gotten. Shouldn't we've been freed of such idiocy by now? Aren't we educated enough by now to understand how immoral and stupid racism is? We still have major problems with that and more education and trying to convince racists does not help. The only thing that helps is to shut them up and make policies against racism.

If you have some idea that hasn't been tried to death before regarding convincing these people, then everyone's listening. But there's no practical value to just pointing out that there "should be some way to convince them". If we are to act now, then the solution is to just ignore them, make policies regardless of their opinions and just shut them up. There's simply no time educating these adult children.

How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy? — baker

When it comes to the issues with climate change, it has nothing to do with abolishing democracy. It's not a question of opinion or idealism, it is a fact of our world's reality and a fact that points in a certain problematic direction for everyone. Everyone, globally, should take action towards mitigating climate change and stop listening to these immoral people. That is not the same as abolishing democracy.

Like, if there was a comet coming towards us and the entire world economy and all nations need to act together to solve it fast. Would you leave that up to democracy? To be debated? To try and convince idiots that the problem is real? No, all nations would just move towards solutions like if they had a giant bulldozer. They would run the idiots over and everyone who understands the dangers would cheer it on.

I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results. — baker

The people we are talking about are not discussing the most effective strategies, they are opposing what would be minor inconveniences in their lives. The only ones equipped to really decide the best strategies are the actual scientists, experts and engineers working to solve the problems. Regular people should shut up and listen to these experts. Politicians should shut up and listen to the solutions. The moral dimension around the subject need to become more clear to the public.

As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.

Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes. — baker

Failing that education would not result in potentially millions of deaths and extremely changed living conditions of the entire global population. Sorry, but this analogy does not work for the subject of climate change as it does not have a moral consequence and the dimension of time to avoid such a consequence. Class is over, the semester is done, action needs to be taken.

There you go, outsourcing responsibility again. — baker

How am I outsourcing responsibility when I point in the direction of the one's who are actually responsible to take the actions needed? What responsibility are you suggesting me to have and take? Isn't it responsible to also push for actions taken now and not caring for the saboteurs working against these necessary actions? Isn't it taking responsibility to try and push for a moral realm of thinking around this subject and abandoning the idea that this is some debate of ideals?

What type of responsibility is valid in your book? Considering the urgent time for action and the lack of time to educate people actively giving experts the finger? Did that student give you the finger when you tried to help her? No, because your analogy is about people wanting to be educated, it's nowhere near the reality of this subject matter. I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.

The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Since there's no debate about the science as the science is clear, why would it therefor be about economic policy as a form of a capitalist/anti-capitalist dichotomy? Isn't it more or less a question of morality? I.e what's the moral action for us to collectively take? With the right strategy and effort, the damage of rapid policy change would be microscopic against the reality of not doing anything to mitigate climate change.

I don't see how there should be any debate other than about what's the best mitigation strategy. The debate should be about which actions are the best, and how to incorporate them into society in the best way. Like, new green industries that not only mitigate climate change, but also generate new jobs. How high carbon taxes would push industry people who are only interested in their balance sheets and bank accounts to actually change towards mitigation. When and where nuclear energy is better than solar, wind and sea and so on...

If the debate centers around the science, then it's pointless. If it centers around some capitalist/anti-capitalist political debate, then it's also pointless. In this subject matter the science is real and proven and economic philosophy just lead to navel-gazing about people's preferred world views. Rather, the position climate change should be about at this time in history should be about the strategies and mitigation solutions and how to practically implement them into society in a smart way. Everything else is just pointless and every denier should just be ignored just as much as they ignore the severity of the subject.

How do you plan to do that? — baker

Through politicians actually doing what it takes instead of acting like demagogues only worried about losing votes in the next election.

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others. — baker

How do you know I'm not doing that? And are you doing anything other than acting as an apologist for the people standing in the way of fixing things? Answer me what's worst? Not standing in the way of necessary change or defend those who stand in the way? What's the point in that?

And you phrase that I'm only acting like this to justify to be mean, which is an intentional misinterpretation of what I actually do. I am mean because that's what apologists deserve as they are actively standing in the way of necessary change. Collectively these people form the political public opinion that holds these necessary changes back and in turn they are indirectly responsible for any deaths linked to the rapidly changing climate. I am very much in the right to treat them accordingly:

If you are told that certain paths ahead will result in people dying and societies getting destroyed and that there's a path to take to avoid all that, and you actively choose to not take the path to avoid it, but not only that you actively try to sabotage anyone trying to change it, as well as spreading disinformation denial of all of it even being an issue; then that's a deliberate act of sabotage that has a direct link to the consequences that could have been avoided.

It's like if you have a drunk person in front of you who says he's going to drive home and you know that this path will go past a school. There's a person trying to convince him that he shouldn't drive home drunk but there's also another person who's trying to just push that person aside and tell the drunk that he shouldn't listen, that there is no risk, there's no problem, just drive home and do it as fast as he can. You have the choice to support one of these opposing sides; to support the person who tries to talk sense into the drunk by pushing aside the one trying to get him to drive. But you could also support the other person and push aside the one trying to talk sense into the drunk.

Neither of your actions in that scenario leads to you directly being the one running over and killing kids. But it's quite clear that your actions help push a certain line of opinions towards an action that would quite possibly do that. Why wouldn't anyone put you into partial blame for what happened if kids got run over by the drunk?

This is why people who are apologists for those standing in the way of necessary change in society towards mitigating climate change should be viewed as immoral and they should be treated accordingly. So I have no problem being harsh or mean towards these people and that's not an entitlement, that's just me having a working moral compass. The ones who are the really entitled people in all of this are the ones who don't want to change their ways and actively fight against anything that would require them to do so, even if not changing would lead to kids getting run over in the future.

And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people? — baker

As I have said, trying to talk sense into them does not work. It has been the strategy for decades. If they are uneducated, egocentric and acting like gullible idiots, then you can try and convince them all you like and they will still not budge.

If that leads to time running out to implement the necessary changes, then you simply have to just don't give a shit about them and just do what's needed. It's that simple. There's no time to change the minds of people who actively fight against having their minds changed or being properly educated. So politicians and industry people need to simply do things anyway, even if it risks losing votes. But then again, people would vote some idiot into power that would just push for ignorant policies. If we can underline the immorality of regular people acting against necessary change, then we can at least create a cultural foundation of the morality of regular people within this subject matter and as I've exemplified I have no problem calling them immoral and people should stop beating around the bush on this as well.

and so when members bring their two cents to the issue, it makes knowing who to ignore on others issues very clear. So that’s useful. I say there’s been anywhere from 6-12 people so far. Saves me time. — Mikie

Yes, how people handle knowledge is a trait transcending specific subjects. I tend to see even within science that people who have biased ideas about something else tend to be biased in their scientific research as well. That's why I'm always skeptical about religious physicists. At most they have to be agnostic, but having a strong belief at the same time as conducting science mostly seem to influence how they treat their own conclusions, sticking to their guns further than others when facing criticism. Thank the gluons we have consensus praxis.

I’m thinking of going to an evolutionary biology course and explaining to the professor that the reason the subject is “controversial” is because they’re too mean, not empathic enough, not effective in how they communicate, are too harsh or judgmental, etc. I’ll pretend to be a Buddhist monk like Thich Nhat Hanh. This way I can feel like I’m involved in evolutionary biology. — Mikie

:lol:

We who? Educational? You have shown that you do not even know statistics, how are you going to educate anyone? — Lionino

We who actually understand the science, we who understand the problems, we who don't attach identity to this entire subject and use it as punchlines for something else.

And not doing the research that people should actually do on their own is not the same as "not know the statistics". You can search publications yourself, you can dive into all that research, the information is everywhere if you know where to get scientific data. And there are plenty who are trying to educate people, but you know, people don't listen, because they don't care to listen, they decide what they agree with or not before they hear it, they decide based on arbitrary ideals and emotional reasoning.

Then they formulate arguments around such biases and believe they are actually intellectually engaging with the subject matter. But they're not, they're using rhetorical twists and turns not to convince the other side, but to make sure they're never acknowledging themselves to be wrong. It's the same behavior as flat earthers and other conspiratorial behaviors. It doesn't matter that there's a truckload of evidence, that there are educators and experts everywhere that friendly provide their knowledge if they want it, or that the publications are out there to be found if they wanted. The reason has nothing to with what is truth or not for them, it has to do with them.

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals.

You're inconsistent.


This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.
What choice, if you plan to "run them over"? — baker

How is that inconsistent? I mentioned what is needed to be done to change course and if people don't make that choice then the only outcome is for everything to collapse until the world's population beg for changes. To speak about different possible outcomes does not make what I said inconsistent.

Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist. — baker

I agree that democracy has problems, but the solution isn't autocracy. It's to evolve democracy into a better system.

The problem, however, is that people in society doesn't seem to have the capacity to actually evolve systems and ideas. Rather, they attach their identity to a system they prefer and defend it to death.

Democracy is far better than any other system in existence right now. However, it is easily skewed by corruption and demagogues. So the solution needs to take care of those problems as a feature of the system. Right now, countries with low corruption and responsible politicians do actually show examples of how good a society can be if things function, but there are no guardrails against such a society falling into corruption and irresponsible politics, so we're basically just accepting democracy as being a thin bridge with a drop to the death underneath, and hope that we can balance the strong winds without guardrails.

Then, let's build the damn guard rails instead of thinking that we should just bash old concepts against each other like any of them are a solution. None of them are, all of them have faults. We should look towards what works and what doesn't, and build from that. But society is too naive, too up their own asses in thinking they are intellectuals. Marx didn't have a theory to bash against capitalism, he looked at the problems and pointed them out with a new theory. And while I'm not saying Marxism is the solution, I'm saying that no one actually does any damn thinking towards improving society, people only play political philosophy these days.

Sabine does a good job of calmly saying "get your fucking shit together". But unfortunately nothing will happen until the people in power and industries around the globe start to see their resources dwindle or when people had enough of floodings and heat waves and start removing these powerful people by force.

Regular people will continue to not want to change, until the world changes so much that they simply have to.

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language. — baker

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives?

It's not "Shakespearean". Please. — baker

It's not wrong either.

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI

Yes, I've talked to a lot of young people about all of this and they say that "there's no point". An utter surrender to whatever downfall of society or humanity that will come. And I've tried to challenge them and say that since change takes time, especially in political arenas, they have to go into politics now. I'm not sure if it's the adults and older people's failure to communicate the importance of politics or if it's an utter lack of faith in political influence, but they don't seem to understand that they can absolutely make a difference if they fight for it.

I mean, there's only elderly people in the halls of power anyway, it would be like doing a cage fight with the residents of an elderly home. Just pile dive those suckers and move into positions that take the power away from these old farts. They're not building a future other than their own funeral.

Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways. — baker

We've tried the friendly educational method for decades. They only become triggered and hostile like it's their privilege to be taken seriously, regardless of how utterly uneducated and downright stupid their ideas are.

Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.

The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes.

This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.

Cool. Proof? — Lionino

Go read some publications. Listen to the actual experts. There is no debate other than by those believing themselves to know more than the actual scientists who publish. I will not be baited like this, I've been in these debates for a long time and it's just not possible to convince people who think they know more about climate change and global warming than the science presents. It's like debating flat earthers, there's no point and I won't even bother putting time and effort into it, pointless. I can debate and discuss the things that matter; what to do, evaluating the possible consequences, strategies to mitigate, energy politics and stuff but I will not engage in a debate about human causes for climate change because it is already proven and I'm not gonna lower myself to that level of anti-intellectual waste of time.

Because global warming ended up being scientifically inaccurate. — Lionino

It's not scientifically inaccurate, it is scientifically accurate in that the world is globally warming up and the climate is changing in different ways because the effect of increased global degrees affects the balance between different regions of the world. And since society, globally, is primarily built around the climate that has been in each region for hundreds of years every society needs to adjust while those already at the hottest position will need to move.

The change in terminology is due to people being too stupid to read below the headlines, not that it is scientifically inaccurate.

The only debate is how much has been caused by us — Lionino

There is no debate. It's one of the most proven scientific field of all; getting high into the Sigma scales of statistical probabilities. The only ones debating are the ones too stupid to understand everything, those chilling for the oil industry and those who have just attached the anti-climate-science identity to their general persona. The rest have known about this for a long time and been proven right over and over and over. At the moment there's so much data that anyone denying human industry and infrastructure being the cause for the global temp spikes are simply delusional.

There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase.

What could be the result of this if it were to spread to the majority of the globe along with the matter of global warming kept in mind? — Ege

The breakdown and polarization of society is something seen mostly online. It's part of the extreme ends and not statistically representative of the majority of people. The problem is that these extreme ends are growing, eating away from the majority. But that wouldn't lead to the majority being eroded to nothing, it would simply mean that at some point it will kick everyone into action and standing up against the extreme ends.

Climate change will not end humanity, it will, at most, end some cultures. It will change the state of the world, making some places uninhabitable, which could be as large as whole countries. It will lead to mass exodus of people who simply "can't return to were they came from" and in turn probably lead to massive increases in racism and concentration camps trying to "deal with the situation". We are effectively talking about billions of people that may need relocation.

Combined we will see a massive change to society as a whole. Probably in the form of a massive war, world war about resources and a place called "home" for people leaving uninhabitable places.

The survivors of all of this will reshape how the world looks. Some nations will have effectively "dealt" with the situation of their concentration camps in the worst possible way we can imagine. And subsequent lead to new forms of Nuremberg trials making examples of those who couldn't find their moral compass. Extended from that, the people who fought against the mitigation of climate change will be put into social ostracization. They will be blamed as the cause for the wars and atrocities outside of the ones directly responsible.

Time will then go on and we will have new works of art created as a meditation of the horrors of the past. A collective healing from the wars and polarization. Conservative views who align with past horrors will be shunned.

A new era with laws focusing on ecological balance of technology will be formed and hopefully a new improved democracy that mitigates the risk of putting incompetence in power.


As I see it, all of what's going on will eventually end in some form of large conflict and large form of the worst acts of man. It will get worse before it gets better. The only thing for it not to get worse before it gets better is to radically remove all incompetence in leadership, either by democratic means or by force and for the middle apathetic majority of people to drastically stand up against the extreme ends of polarization - But that will not happen, because it's in human nature to be lazy until shit hits the fan.

I guess we're gonna look back on these times 40-50 years from now in the same way we look back at doctors advertising cigarettes. And future generations will look at all the aging advocates, apologists and evangelics as fuckups of their time, elderly losers who no one will miss. Great sense of legacy these people will feel by then. I have no problem feeling moral superiority in this matter, if there ever was something that would be easy to find the moral compass within it's this topic. One of the most proven scientific fields of all, showing evidence as far back as the 50s and people just act like it's up for debate. Yeah, I'll stay humble in other areas, but this high horse is quite comfy to be on.

And.... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/30/fossil-fuel-industry-air-pollution-fund-research-caltech-climate-change-denial

I think political threads need some extra eyes up until at least after the US election. You mods are pretty good at keeping this forum clean from the overwhelming BS found everywhere else online, but I think these months before the election may go extreme. A fusion of fake AI media, coupled with the downfall of X (Twitter), the bad algorithms of Meta, and an extreme escalation of polarization among even people outside of the regular extreme groups globally. With a world standing on the edge of a sword, internet is going to be flooded with extreme stuff and it would be important for a place like this to survive its level-headed discussions on all these complex situations.

low quality culture war stuff — Jamal

I predict a rapid escalation of this stuff over the coming months.

Get there early, find the one who tied them there, free them all, give the fat man some diet advice. Buy them all a ticket to the train.

Solved.

Begin to at least cast a wider net and be aware of biases and political leanings. This OP borders on, or is downright propaganda in its low quality.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart



We can draw from different sources for bias checking, but these are the most wide spread for now. For scientific rigor around bias checking there are machine learning techniques developed; but I'm not sure if any are in use at this time. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362614797_Machine-learning_media_bias

Here I was thinking the same about you. — Pantagruel

In what way? You either have the broad definition of bias as something that gravitate towards something or how bias is described in thinking and reasoning, which is what this is about.

The concept that we must put a man on the moon was a bias that flew in the face of current technology (so to speak). The resultant Saturn V project was a monument to the power of human creative thought resulting in countless technological innnovations. — Pantagruel

How is that a bias? It was an ambition and goal, how is any of that a bias?

And the Saturn V wasn't enabled by creative thinking. Once again, creative thinking aren't conclusions, they're explorations. The conclusions that made Saturn V possible weren't abstractions mounted together into a functioning form, it was creative thinking that guided the journey towards rigid and factually based conclusions, i.e the final form of Saturn V that functioned did so because of the unbiased end point of that exploration. Creative thinking didn't enable Saturn V to do anything, it was the unbiased science that made it function. Belief doesn't take you to the moon, it was the hard work of unbiased reasoning that enabled it and that may start with creative thinking, but must end without bias, or else that belief will blow the thing up.

So, what biases helped build the Saturn V and make it fly? Creative thinking and ambition or goals aren't cognitive biases. Exploration in itself isn't the knowledge or conclusion. My point is that the journey towards factual conclusions can be filled with creative thinking, but anyone who stops moving towards the conclusions that lies past their biases will find themselves in a blown up rocket.

Who says that logic and rational reasoning are the sole measure of validity? Again, this is one of your own biases....

towards further and further rigid structures until a solid form of conclusion emerges.
— Christoffer
the exploration of ideas require going from the abstract to the solid.
— Christoffer
exploratory journey from abstract chaos to solid order
— Christoffer

Again, these are all scientifically biased, with respect to the role that science plays in human existence. To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

How are they biases? What are they biases towards?

Would you say that a conclusion that is formed on no solid grounds, that only relies on abstract random ideas; is on equal terms with a conclusion that has been formed by stripping away lose ends, beliefs and been built on further and further verifications and support in evidence?

If not, then the first quote is not a bias or biased in any way, it is an observation of how knowledge is actually acquired. Case point is the Saturn V rocket. It can start with a creative thought and idea, but you can never have a biased conclusion as the foundation for the rocket's function. Belief has no place on its blueprint.

You conflate exploration with conclusions, that's the problem here. You say something is biased but don't provide any argument that uses the term properly. You use the term in a vague form. Human biases, in the context of this thread; belief, is an end point that appears before a conclusion in truth. Having a bias towards a belief stops the journey from reaching actual rational conclusions. Belief didn't enable the Saturn V to fly, it was the engineering and math, the conclusions so rigid in their truth that they rhymed with the physical laws of the universe, far beyond any beliefs in our heads.

To claim that science provides (or can provide) an adequate framework for existence is, number one, not itself a scientific claim. — Pantagruel

That's not what this is about. This thread is about what limitations that theistic or religious belief has on the process of philosophical thinking and in science.

For which reason such perspectives are usually criticized. Which was the original point, that your estimation is itself value-laden, hence typical of the very belief-structure that you reject. — Pantagruel

Did you understand what I meant by the journey from free thought to rigid and solid conclusions? That's the core of my argument. Because you are conflating the journey with it's destination. Belief, ambition, creativity, abstraction or emotion may be the initial state of the Saturn V rocket, but the destination was a machine that could fly us to the moon. You cannot fly a rocket on belief alone, you can not design a rocket if you have a bias towards an engineering solution that is simply just based on belief.

The journey is not the destination. And in context of this thread, conflating the journey for the destination is exactly the problem with bias that theists and religious thinkers have. Stopping their journey before the destination purely on the belief that they are already there. And when presented evidence that they're not, they just move a little bit closer, but never arriving until they rid themselves of beliefs and biases.