Just saw this, apropos:

Democrats have a year to save the planet.

Not really a joke...or an exaggeration.

Okay...and then what?

Is that where the story ends for you? If so, you're part of what I mean in the title of this thread. Because I'm sure a lot of others feel it's all hopeless too, and have resigned from doing anything. Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need an awakening -- including out of that defeatism.

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual. — baker

I understand that, and I'm not questioning your sincerity about it. I agree wholeheartedly that we, as individual consumers, should be doing more.

But you're also well aware that not everyone has that luxury, as in the case of India that I mentioned. They're going to continue burning coal to generate electricity, for the same reason that not everyone shops at Whole Foods. In that case it's a matter of our governments to take action and provide for their people. Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. But it's far more important, in my view, for reasons we can get into if we want.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions.
— Xtrix
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy. — baker

It's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. The emphasis, however, in everything you've said so far has been on individual actions. You went through your anecdote about clothing, for example. All that's fine. No rational person is against this. What I object to is the emphasis. If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. That doesn't mean we don't want people to continue to live sustainably.

Here's a fair analysis, if read carefully: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis

https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea.
— Xtrix
Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources. — baker

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. The former is what the industries want us to believe, as has been well documented; the latter is what is often discouraged, but is happening more and more as this issue becomes more pressing.

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.
— Xtrix

You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of insdiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin: — TheMadFool

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread. — Xtrix

There's no contradiction: I, as an individual named Mike, am not the same as the 7 billion people on earth. I'm a part of the human species, yes. That doesn't make me the human species. That's absurd, on any level, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.

Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual. — TheMadFool

Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.

If we want to say that humanity is "one," there's plenty of ways in which to do so. We all have the capacity for thought and language, for example. That's fine, and seemingly true. But that's a matter of abstraction, definition, and classification.

True, one way is to claim that we are a superorganism, but I don't subscribe to that. I don't see anything like the behavior of bees or ants or any kind of striving for a common purpose -- although I think that's a fine goal.

As I said before, different concepts need to be employed when discussing group behavior. Take a basketball team. We don't say Lebron James is the team -- he's a member of the team. Or take a rock band -- Ringo Starr wasn't the Beatles, all of the members made up what was then labeled "the Beatles." When the team or the band plays together, something different happens. When we focus attention on an individual, something else happens. They're different levels of abstraction.

My entire point was that there are similarities which are important, and it's interesting to talk as if society were an individual, but to take that literally strikes me as completely incoherent.

You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified. — TheMadFool

Let's be concrete so as not to get lost in space: I'm talking about the United States in particular, because of its power in world affairs, and the individuals who are in control of the United States government, which are the wealthy. The wealthy mostly come from the business world, and are the individuals who control the multinational corporations -- which are the current form of big business. These individuals who control the corporations, and the individuals who make up the government, are the people who essentially run the world. They're also the ones currently destroying the world. I believe the reasons for this, as I mentioned, are simultaneously an addiction to material gain (one expression of greed) and an irrational system of beliefs/values. That's not a problem with the world, really -- that's a problem with a small percentage of the world, made up of the individuals with the power to influence global affairs.

To be more specific, look at Amazon, BlackRock, and Berkshire Hathaway -- and even more specifically, the individuals who control these gigantic entities: Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink, and Warren Buffett. These are real people with real beliefs and real power. Their decisions effect millions of people (and perhaps billions). They're three people.

I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread.

Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices. — TheMadFool

Right, which I think is the case. This is only an analogy, though. When thinking about the collective problems of a society, different concepts need to be brought into the analysis.

Nevertheless, we can learn from the parallels. I think it comes down basic aspects of human nature and how the world effects these aspects. Currently I think the people leading the world -- the wealthy -- have been blinded by greed. They're addicted to the accumulation of capital, at the expense of all else. This is simultaneously a problem of beliefs and values, and of ignorance.

Like a person who can't stop gambling, despite wanting to stop and knowing full well he's destroying his life, the individuals steering the "ship of state" are heading right for disaster.

Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool

I think so.



I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. True, we could all stop using electricity too. We could sew our own clothes. We could all live a completely sustainable life. That's a nice dream. In the real world, it's not so easy -- not everyone has the luxury to do so, in the United States or India or anywhere else. We have two choices: we can ask millions of people to drastically alter their lives, or we can use the government (the people we've elected) to pass laws and regulations and spend money to encourage more sustainable practices by the industries that are responsible for this mess.

Some want to blame the people, others put more of the blame on the leaders of the country. I'm in the latter camp. That's not to deny that we as people have to educate ourselves, organize, resist propaganda, have informed votes, and try to live more sustainable lives. But the industries responsible for emissions -- especially fossil fuels -- deliberately want to put the onus on the masses. So did tobacco before them, and the fast-food industry, and the sugar industry, etc. After all, if we just consumed less, we wouldn't get fat. We all know the risks of smoking, so it's a conscious choice. Etc. Yeah -- if you buy all that, you'll more than likely fall in the former camp when it comes to this issue. But it's a mistake, and always has been.

I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. — Echarmion

Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. — Echarmion

I sympathize with this, and it's certainly true. But I see it as more about where we place the emphasis. Much like the nature/nurture dichotomy, how beliefs effect behavior and vice versa is essentially inseparable in real life, but can be abstracted and isolated in thought. Sometimes useful, but in my opinion not in this case.

What we care about is action, yes. Behavior. I personally don't care much about what people believe -- if they're Christian, or Republicans, or capitalists, or Satanists. I care about what they do. But it just so happens that propaganda, misinformation, and false beliefs account for much of the behavior we currently see around us -- from voting for a degenerate sociopath, to QAnon, to the Big Lie of a stolen election, to climate change denial, to a Flat Earther, etc. It's exacerbated by social media.

So this is why I stress awareness and education in this so-called "awakening." I don't think people would be doing the things they are doing if they weren't being duped by powerful corporate and political forces, especially the media. The media, after all, is where we get most of our information about the world -- whether from Washington or Iraq, from science to entertainment. How that's framed matters a great deal, and like the big tech companies, it's not neutral. There's an agenda behind a lot of this, almost always monetary.

The freer the country, the better the propaganda.

I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem... — ChatteringMonkey

It's true that information is out there, but unfortunately that doesn't mean much. That's clearly not resulting in a healthier, educated, happier society. What's needed is real education and real awareness. That has to occur from person to person, preferably in the real world, but it can happen online too.

If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing.

I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect. — ChatteringMonkey

But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita (of the major emitters, unless you count Canada as a major emitter at #7, but that's arguable). That's significant. There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies.

But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH.

It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems. — ChatteringMonkey

China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal.

But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal."
— Xtrix
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products. — baker

Production of products comes from major industries, which we use the state to regulate/subsidize/monitor, etc.

Radically decreasing consumption isn't the real issue, although we've been taught to believe it is. So we can stop eating meat, use better lightbulbs, shop at the Farmer's Market, reuse, recycle, get solar panels, etc. -- and it won't do a thing. Even if millions do so. The major emissions come from industry, what gets produced in that industry and how it gets produced. Other countries seem to do it all just fine, with little emissions per capita next to ours, and it's not because the people shut off their lights or are all less materialistic -- it's because their governments put measures in place that reduces emissions -- public transportation systems, renewable energy investments, etc.

It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments.
— Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such? — baker

Are you really asking how legislation and trillions of dollars of investments would change carbon emissions? I gave some examples above. Take public transportation. That would be a huge investment, and would save us a lot of pollution and a lot of traffic. People are in favor of it, but aren't given that option -- because investments haven't been made in it, unlike in other countries. Ask yourself why. It's not because of the stupid, ignorant, greedy masses. Likewise with electric cars -- we could very easily subsidize these to lower the costs, and invest in EV stations all over the country. Biden is proposing measures for that as we speak. That's been delayed for decades for a simple reason: the oil, gas, and automobile industries don't want it. That wasn't a choice the people made.

We can go on and on.

The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those. — baker

Yeah, this is just a mistake.

Maybe the law has no power over murderers and thieves...? Of course legalization has the power to change a country's collective behavior -- there are plenty of examples.

Yes, but the entire premise is faulty. There's no reason to believe the economy is "collapse," in fact there most economists think it'll result in much more growth. It's a couple industries that need to especially be dismantled, and several practices we need to end or find alternatives for. All are available. But it'll take money and political will. The more we pressure them into it, the better chance we have -- since clearly they won't do it on their own.

I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." It has almost nothing to do with individual sacrifices, as we're lead to believe. It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. These decisions lie in the hands of our leaders, who need to be held accountable. The public didn't choose any of this directly, these are decisions made by people with "special interests," and they simply have more power to influence the world than the vast majority of us. That can change very quickly. Won't be easy.

P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)

Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:

C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.

For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid? — javra

This is excellent. I commend you.

But how could that help??

If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?

One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable. — baker

It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.

People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker.

This is already underway, as I mentioned. It's not just theoretical -- it's happening. But it's not happening quickly enough, and I don't think the fundamental dogma (the religion of neoliberal state capitalism) has been questioned as much as it should be -- although even that is changing.

Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.

Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.

I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me. — NOS4A2

Yes, which is a reality — a reality you want to equate with Nostradamus and Revelation.

Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. — NOS4A2

Whether you’re confident or not is irrelevant. Talk to a few experts and survey the evidence— Google “climate tipping points,” etc. See how confident you are then. Is it guaranteed? No. But we should all be acting like it is; if we don’t act that way, and don’t treat it like the emergency it is, we’re dead. That’s obvious. I hope that isn’t the case— but I’m not confident about it.

Only general comments. I think he nails it, really.

His views on Paul, his analysis of priests, his calling Jesus the leader of a “Buddhistic peace movement,” etc etc. All very different from what you’d hear anywhere else, even today — let alone the 1880s. With such style, to boot.

One of his most polarizing works, I’m sure. But to me one of the most important.

Three or four times, plus once via audiobook. (But that's over the course of 20 years.)

This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche. — Joshs

Yeah, or this -ism or that -ism. (Someone's taken philosophy classes.) All well and good, and I like to classify and define and read and interpret dead thinkers too.

But that's not really this thread. So try the next assignment: try mulling things over for yourself, in particular the real world you're currently living in. Then try to identify the problems, and ask what can be done to solve them -- and where you fit in with those solutions.

That's really the crux of this thread.

Was he a revolutionary? Or a lunatic? — frank

I really can't see how anyone who's actually read Nietzsche can claim he's a "lunatic." I don't think it absurd to say his thinking was revolutionary for his time.

Every time I read the Antichrist, I'm amazed at the brilliance and clarity. One of his most direct attacks on Christianity.

All ‘truths’ are mere appearances which emerge out of value systems. — Joshs

Fantastic. Or maybe all value systems are appearances of truths! :chin: :yawn:

Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously. — javra

We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think).

In the real world, climate change is already happening all around us because of an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels for human activities like electrical power, transportation, producing cement and steel, etc. Simple. We don't have time to dick around with the nature of "truth."

He certainly was laughing at something.

“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”

“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs

Exactly. Even he would be laughing at you.

Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians.

But again, this is changing the subject: I never once said there needs to be a universal perspective. But to take it out of the abstract bullshit you seem to want to engage in, I'll make it concrete: the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. For all intents and purposes, it's most certainly true that we're heading for disaster unless something is done to prevent or mitigate it.

True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it.

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
What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary! — ssu

Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion.

What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.)
— Xtrix
Starting with those.

So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.

Zero emissions.

All greenhouse gas emissions. — ssu

How disingenuous. You got me! Well done. I again made the fatal mistake of thinking I was writing for adults.

I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. — ssu

Yeah, and don't forget exhaling. Because that's definitely what I meant too.

in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective."
— Xtrix

No, I think your statement below articulates what I had in mind more clearly than ‘single universal perspective’.

it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth
— Xtrix — Joshs

Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.

Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you.

"Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future."

You didn't say anything about apocalypse.

True, maybe the world isn't destroyed by climate change or nuclear weapons. Which is like saying "Maybe the asteroid will miss us, despite scientists telling us there's 99% likelihood that it will". After all, Nostradamus was wrong.

Climate change not only will radically alter the world, it already has. There is also the possibility of tipping points, which are irreversible -- for anyone willing to read what the scientists are telling us. Or we can take your attitude: maybe they're all wrong. Yeah, maybe there won't be an solar eclipse on April 4th, 2024. Maybe? Who knows? The Aztecs were way off, remember.

First of all, this is a very large minority. — Joshs

No, actually it isn't. If you're talking about the United States, it's fairly large -- but still a minority. Most of them are immobile, and I have no hope or interest in converting them.

Secondly, believing the opposition is simply ‘brainwashed’ rather than operating from an entirely different frame of understanding than yours will keep you tied up in knots. — Joshs

So you're going to keep arguing nonsense, I see. I should just ignore it, but I won't:

Of COURSE they are operating from a "different frame of reference." So are ISIS, so are Creationists, so were the Nazis. What good do you think you're doing pointing out truisms like this? Do you really think I've overlooked this fact -- a fact that a child could grasp?

One can "operate from a different frame of reference" and be brainwashed. That's what's happening with climate denial. No, I'm not "tied up in knots" about it -- I have very little hatred for ignorant or brainwashed people, despite the consequences of their deluded beliefs. But there's simply not enough time to try to "convince" people who are already deeply caught in propaganda. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but please continue arguing on anyway...

“Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.”

Assuming that those who disagree with you on this issue are brainwashed pre-supposes that facts can be separated from perspectives and values. — Joshs

No, it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth. Call me crazy.

But in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective." Not once. That, as I said before, is your own fantasy.

My point is that there will never be precise agreement , nor does there need to be, on what exactly the ‘particular problem’ is. — Joshs

There is 97% + agreement on what the problem is -- from those in the field. That's good enough for me.

I'm not interested in the minority who have been brainwashed into denialism by the fossil fuel propaganda juggernaut, I'm interested only in those who either don't know enough about it or know but don't prioritize it.

Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future. At least I can’t think of anyone who got it right. — NOS4A2

We get it right all the time, every day in fact. This is just another stupid talking point used whenever climate change is brought up. You're not fooling me or anyone else.

can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem.
— Xtrix

One could make the same argument about World war 1, World war 2 and the Cold war. People make accommodations to alien cultures ( peace treaties) and adjustments to perceived threats from within their own way of seeing the world , not by melding into a single universal perspective. — Joshs

Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.

I'll repeat: what's needed is wide-scale awareness and prioritization of the particular problem (climate change). Without it, it's business as usual and we're toast. This has nothing to do with World War 1 and 2 or the Cold War. It's pure delusion not to recognize this.

Not only will we never get these communities to ‘awaken’ to the same understanding on any issue , we shouldn’t consider it a desirable goal. — Joshs

I can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem. That doesn't mean I think it'll happen.

It'll take a lot of education, organization, conversations with one another, practical (and local) efforts, etc. All possible, many of it going on right now. It's just pure delusion to consider this anything but desirable.

Congratz you've resorted to a Ad hominem fallacy. — Tiberiusmoon

It's "congrats," not "congratz." Also, it's "an ad hominem," not "a ad hominem."

Add "learning how to write" on your to-do list before spewing incoherent bullshit..

So wouldn't you need fundamental information/context in order to answer it?

But a question has no answer at the beginning, the answer is the sum of the question not the other way round, don't you see? — Tiberiusmoon

Yes, I see that you're a complete buffoon -- and you're boring me. Bye.

But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die
— Xtrix

We're probably going to die then. North America has like 200 years worth of coal to burn. — frank

Maybe. But again, it's up to all of us. It's not like an asteroid -- this is self-inflicted, and can be stopped. It'll be difficult, but not impossible. It can be achieved by spending something like 3% of GDP a year according to Robert Pollin.

Large asset managers are shifting their AUM to ESGs, solar and wind are cheaper to build, major automobile makers are going fully EV by 2035, and increasing majorities are concerned and want something done quickly (here). To name a few glimmers of hope.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.

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. — javra

Well said. This is also what I mean by awakening. A paradigm shift, a revolution -- all similar: a major, far-reaching event that happens relatively quickly.

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.

Okay so what answer tells you more about multiplication?
=12 =12 — Tiberiusmoon

Neither tells you anything about multiplication.

As you just said, that information is required of the question itself, the answer is the outcome of logic piecing it together like a puzzle.

The fundamental knowledge of a answer is the question because that is what makes the question. — Tiberiusmoon

I have no idea what "fundamental knowledge of a[n] answer" means. I really can't make heads or tails of what you're talking about here. I think it's yet another example of Forum word salad.

"The answer is the question because that is what makes the question."

What makes the question? The question. Which is the answer.

If anyone else understands this, I salute you.

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.

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."

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.

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!).

Appreciate that -- very different from Robinson translation, which is why I didn't recognize it.