....

....

....

....

...

....

....

....

...

I wonder whether the record will ever be set straight...

Panspermia doesn't answer the question; rather it punts the question into the cosmos, saying life evolved elsewhere and somehow got here. That doesn't explain how life evolved. It's a supposition; an hypothesis - it's not a theory.

The irreducable complexity of DNA argument is not a theory either; because an inability to explain how DNA formed is not evidence of ID, anymore than it's evidence for the alien lunchbox supposition; which is rather the point!

One of the more interesting ideas is 'fine tuning' of physical constants, but that runs into the anthropic principle - namely, if the universe weren't just so, we wouldn't be here to notice that it's just so. So again, that's not evidence.

This has relevance to an interesting distinction made recently by Ricky Gervais of all people, between knowledge and belief. He said, 'We're all agnostic because we don't know; but that's knowledge, not belief.'

I don't know, and I know I don't know. So I'm agnostic on epistemic grounds. I believe in agnosticism because I'm an epistemic philosopher, and beliefs should be formed, as justified true beliefs.

But proponents of ID; they believe God exists, and seek to justify that belief - and call those post rationalisations evidence. Similarly, atheists believe God doesn't exist; someone mentioned Krauss above, and suggested he seeks to post-rationalise his belief. I believe 'I don't know' is the only legitimate position.

I don't know what any of that means!!!

The term "theory" in science is different from everday use. The title of this thread uses the everyday meaning of the word theory; as in "it's just a theory." That's not what science means by theory.

A better title for this thread might have been 'Intelligent design - a reasonable hypothesis?'

Science can entertain any hypothesis; because an hypothesis is different from a theory.

An hypothesis is a supposition; for example, suppose life on earth began because an alien dropped a cheese sandwich. There's no evidence for this hypothesis; it's not a theory.

In science, a theory is a logically coherent framework that explains a variety of evidence. Evolution is a theory; an underlying mode of explanation - which becomes valid, the more it explains.

Intelligent Design is an hypothesis; a supposition for which there's no evidence. That doesn't mean Intelligent Design is an invalid hypothesis; just that there's no evidence that supports or refutes it. It may be that the universe within which we exist was created, and designed in just such a way as to allow life to exist. But equally, it maybe that life on earth sprang from an alien's misplaced lunchbox!

I'm not talking about the politically correct "woman's right to choose". I'm talking about the supposed "miraculous nature" of living a lifestyle in which having to have an abortion is always in sight. What is so "miraculous" in damaging one's health with hormonal contraceptives, and, if they fail, with abortions? You think it's "miraculous" to TOLO, like a robot? — baker

A woman's right to choose is not related - in my mind, to political correctness. It's more fundamental than that. It's about freeing women from the imprisonment of biological fate. There are some men; indeed, some cultures that would rather keep women barefoot, pregnant and chained to the kitchen sink. These cultures are invariably over-populated and poor. Women's rights are an enlightened value, fundamental to the prosperous sustainable future I'm working for.

(That's when I thought by 'enlightened' the OP meant secular democracy and scientific rationality - and not psuedo-spiritual hocus pocus. )

I wonder what you have to say about people who don't feel that way about food, animal or plant based. — baker

I'd say, if not a consequence of some medical condition, in all likelyhood, that their thinking is warped by a false distinction between the spiritual and the mundane, inherent to religions. It's a fundamentally abusive dynamic - to require acolytes to disregard worldly possessions, bodily integrity - and things like the enjoyment of food. Aesthtic religions set people up to be robbed, sexually abused and starved. Hallelujah!

It's also a dynamic carried forth in the subject/object distinction in western philosophy - wherein over-empahsis on the subjective frees governments and industry from real world responsibilities.

"I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands."

You missed the forest, not just the tree to bark at. — baker

Huh?

I do not engage with disrespectful people. — Athena

Your desperate need to be validated stands in the way of learning something - or failing that, at least providing a service by being there for me to bounce my ideas off; given my quite obviously superior knowledge and intellect. I wish you well ploughing your own furrow, but if the most successful idea you're able to muster is to take offence at the descriptive term 'green commie' - I fear your journey into philosophy will be short an uneventful! Tata!

Yes.

Yes, I know about the very large numbers of people killed by Stalin, and during the famine of the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. There are some differences between the Nazi plan for Jews and Slavs, and the actions directed by Stalin. The same comparing Hitler or Stalin with Mao: the differences make little difference. There are millions of dead, whether caused by efficient planning, paranoia, or colossal, malignant incompetence. — Bitter Crank

There wasn't an explicit racist motive in Communist genocides, however in the 1920s the policy of korenization (nativization) promoted national minorities into the lower administrative-levels of local government. Stalin reversed Lenin's policies, signing off on orders for exiling multiple distinct ethnic-linguistic groups brandished as "traitors", including the Balkars, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Kalmyks, Koreans, and Meskhetian Turks, who were collectively deported to Siberia or Central Asia.

The holocaust is the example par excellence of inhumanity, and goes downhill from there. — Bitter Crank

Sadly, it's not. In Russia, Communists killed somewhere between 20 and 60 million people, and in China, around 50 million people.

My worry is that censoring speech is where it begins; and genocide is where it ends. Freedom of speech is a bulkwark against the mob, and should not be dismantled - because there are far worse things than being slightly offended by someone's stupid opinions.

No. I don't think so. I think she's wrong - but so what? Asking her to explain her opinion, and debating the question is potentially a learning experience - lost due to offense culture.

Isn't life chaotic, even without the human's in picture? — ssu

Is this a roundabout way of saying "climate is always changing"? While nominally true, it's a climate denialist meme, that given any amount of thought, obviously does not imply that adding 45 gigatonnes of carbon to the atmosphere, year after year after year, is not also a problem.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/BF5F/production/_123119984_lauvauxmap.png

You keep using insulting labels like "green commie". There are respectful people and disrespectful people. I have a preference for respectful people. — Athena

I give respect where it's due. If 'green commie' seems disrespectful, that's because it is. Since the 1960's the left have campaigned on environmental issues - using population and climate change to level a Marxian critique of capitalism. Rather than asking how we sustain human welfare, instead, the left have cast the sustainability crisis as a 'contradiction of capitalism' - hoping it would undermine the system. Meanwhile, communism, as an economic system has failed everywhere it has been attempted, frequently resulting in authoritarian government, corruption, widespread poverty and genocide - to which they happily turn a blind eye.

I've been worried about sustainability for a long time; and it's taken a long time to identify the right questions, and longer still to find truly adequate answers. Adopting a scientific worldview, there's realistic hope for the future. It's technologically possible to sustain a large human population - with high levels of welfare, almost indefinitely. This could be the dawn of humanity - not 2 minuets to midnight.

Your belief that there's 40 years worth of oil, and that the world is over-crowded, are common misconceptions - generated by politicised narratives. In fact, less than 2% of the landmass of the UK is built upon; yet population density is quite high by global standards. Also, there's plenty of oil, gas and coal in the ground; hundreds if not thousands of years worth. Only we cannot use it because of global warming.

Similarly, the green commie vegan cyclist crowd do not seem to understand that fossil fuels impose an energy cost on everything we do; therefore limiting what we can do. Take landfill as an example - we dump and bury waste because it's energy efficient. The cost of processing waste would be too great using scarce and expensive fossil fuel energy. Wind and solar will never provide enough energy; and if you resrict supply, the price rises. But given limitless clean energy to spend, we can recycle all waste - mince it all up, and process it for raw materials.

There are rivers that no longer reach the sea, lakes that have dried out completely - like the Aral Sea; formerely the fourth largest lake in the world. It's gone, because upstream have taken all the water, mostly to produce cotton. It takes 2600 liters of water to produce the cotton for one t-shirt. Nature cannot withstand that burden - but, with limitless clean energy, we can produce clean water to irrigate farmland, to produce cotton, food and everything else.

In short, limitless clean energy would fundamentally change our relationship to the environment. Thus, capitalism is sustainable - and sustainable capitalsim is what environmentalists should have been pushing for all along; not least because, as mentioned above, poor people tend to have larger families. Also, poor people don't care about the environment. The only way to secure a sustainable future is to increase and extend prosperity, and the only way to do that is to harness magma energy - to meet all our energy needs, plus, capture carbon, deslainate, irrigate and recycle.

Get real mr. Stone! The only way out is not magma. That's letting the volcano in. The only way out is production decrease. Nature has suffered long enough under the capitalistic hammering. — Dijkgraf

Direct contradiction is not an argument. I can only refer you to the answer I gave above.

...

It's not the energy being clean or not of course this is important insofar the atmosphere is concerned, but more important is what is done with this energy. Or even more important, the scale of use. — HKpinsky

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean, but I suggested - to various politicians and media outlets at COP26, developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to tackle the climate and ecological crisis; using the power generated initially to capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - while building generating capacity to transition sector by economic sector starting with big energy users like mining, cement, steel, agriculture, aviation, shipping etc. In this way, I believe - huge environmental gains can be made without huge upfront infrastructure costs, or politically unpopular impositions on national economies.

Things are getting too unpleasant. — Athena

How did you notice when you've not engaged with anything I've written?

I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem — Athena

...but keep insisting on de-population - while still pumping oil.

Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, at least not if we don't have an energy grid for electric cars, and I don't think electric tanks are going to win wars. Another small fact, oil is sold in dollars and countries around the world hold dollars to pay for that oil and have tied their economies to the value of the dollar. — Athena

If you do not understand that it's morally wrong to blame the climate and ecological crisis on the very existence of people, while restricting viable alternate clean energy technologies to maintain a catastrophically polluting, albeit obscenely profitable fossil fuels industry, then I'll not take lessons from you on being pleasant.

What if the magma lies too deep? — Cornwell1

Most magma is beyond reach, but there are what NASA calls 'crustal magma bodies' - and I call magma chambers, within 1-2km of the surface. The deepest bore hole ever is the Kola Bore Hole in Russia - at 12km, drilled between 1965-1995. Drilling technology has continued to develop since then; as has bore lining technology. So to paraphrase NASA, I don't foresee any 'insurmountable barriers.' Not technological barriers anyway.

The real obstacles seem to be political - though it's difficult to be certian; it seems magma energy falls between two stools: right wing money grubbing fossil fuel addicted climate change denial; on the one hand, and the other, limits to resources, anti-capitalist, green commie, vegan cyclists. Maintaining capitalism with limitless clean energy, and so providing for a prosperous sustainable future is a third wheel to this dichotomy of doom, not on anyone's radar.

Most geothermal energy today is hydrothermal - tapping into underground bodies of hot water. It is not the same as magma energy. The significant passage is highlighted in bold:


Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988

Hydrothermal draws on temperatures rarely exceeding 250'C. Magma is 1200'C. Hydrothermal bodies of underground water have a "replacement rate" problem. They cool down as energy is extracted from them, and take time to heat up again. Magma energy does not have this replacement rate problem.

Astonishingly, you managed to reply without mentioning me, or anything I'd said. Without this...

that Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, — Athena

I would not have known this was a response to my post. How prevelent do you imagine your mindset is; one I'd describe as "maliciously courting disaster" - to the point where you seem quite annoyed that genocide is not the only solution? Where are the better angels of your nature?

I love pictures for helping me understand. Geothermal technology is very hopeful but not the answer for everyone. — Athena

Most geothermal energy today is hydrothermal - tapping into underground bodies of hot water. It is not the same as magma energy. The significant passage is highlighted in bold:


Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C.
Abstract
The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept. Several concepts for drilling, energy extraction, and materials survivability were successfully demonstrated in Kilauea Iki lava lake, Hawaii. The present program is addressing the engineering design problems associated with accessing magma bodies and extracting thermal energy for power generation. The normal stages for development of a geothermal resource are being investigated: exploration, drilling and completions, production, and surface power plant design. Current status of the engineering program and future plans are described.
Publication:
Presented at the Symposium on Geothermal Energy, New Orleans, La., 10 Jan. 1988

Hydrothermal draws on temperatures rarely exceeding 250'C. Magma is 1200'C. Hydrothermal bodies of underground water have a "replacement rate" problem. They cool down as energy is extracted from them, and take time to heat up again. Magma energy does not have this replacement rate problem. Here's a picture to help you understand:

Perfect! Yes, it is a shortcut and that is what is wrong with it. What will happen to your thinking if you do not use that shortcut? What will happen to your explanation and the reader's ability to understand what you think is wrong? :wink: There is great hope for you. — Athena

If I do not use the term 'green commie' to describe the environmental movement since the 1960's - I'm unfortunately left with stupidity as an explanation for failure to understand that, the only way to secure a sustainable future is to increase prosperity. It has long been established that poor people tend toward larger families; suggested reasons for this counter intuitive phenomenon range from a lack of women's rights, via lack of access to healthcare, right through to an unconscious desire for security in old age. Consequently, reducing demand is not a viable strategy to secure sustainability - yet continues, the environmentalist mantra: pay more, have less, stop this, tax that. If it is not an attempt to undermine capitalism - then it's an intellectual deficieincy. Have it your way!

The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct. — Athena

I assume you mean the great ape. Was this typed by a gorilla? Ba-na-na! How do you propose to reduce the number of humans? During the Second World War, for 8 years, the whole economies of nations were turned to the purposes of mass murder, and a mere 200 million people were killed. There are 8 thousand million people on earth. Do you think they'll just sit still and accept their fate?

We are consuming forests faster than they can reproduce and in many forest areas the soil is very poor so once the forest is gone, it is gone. I live in timber territory where timber is a large part of the economy. Besides reforestation, we have Christmas tree farms and they are no longer healthy. If these nurtured trees can not thrive, for sure all those saplings we are planting are not going to survive! I am afraid timber is no longer a renewable product. There is not enough rain for them to survive. Fire goes with this problem. Our forests are suffering from drought and fire is destroying them, while the same drought condition means saplings will not survive. Now consider all the wildlife that depends on the forest. We need to stop cutting down our forest yesterday, or at least do this cutting with more care. — Athena

Do you not understand that limitless clean energy from magma would afford humans a very different relationship to the environment? Or did you just not read my post? TL:DR? Did you get bored? Ba-na-na!

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do. Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation. — Athena

I could repost the posts I've already written, but I can only suppose you'd ignore them and waffle on relentlessly. What you are saying has already been said; I've acknowledged your argument by citing Malthus and Limits to Growth. I'm the one with something novel to say - so perhaps we could discuss my argument, rather than ignoring what I'm saying to restate the already stated, and very well understood dogmatic view of the stupid green movement.

Different points of view are a good thing. I don't think anything would convince me to believe overpopulation is not a very serious problem and you will not be convinced that the apes and other species seriously need their habitats or they become extinct. Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing. — Athena

I somehow missed your post. Sorry about that; and about name calling. It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone.

I would agree that different points of view are a good thing; yet the assumption that over-population is the root cause of the environmental crisis is ubiquitous, and you adamantly refuse to entertain any counter argument.

The argument was made by Malthus in his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population. He argued that because population increases geometrically - 2.4.8.16.32 etc, while agricultural land can only be added arithmetically 1.2.3.4.5. etc, population must necessarily outstrip food production and there would be mass starvation. He was wrong. Tractors and fertilizers were invented, and food production far outpaced population growth.

The Limits to Growth (LTG) 1972 report on the exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources, is essentially the same argument - and one that doesn't account for the multiplication of resources by technology. The false assumption persists even today, as the philosophical basis of all policies that lay blame with the end consumer - rather than advocating for supply side responsibility on the part of producers. Why? Because; while the right have engaged in climate change denial, the left have projected all their environmental arguments through the distorting lens of anti-capitalism.

I say again, magma is such a vast source of heavy duty clean energy, it would allow us to meet all our energy needs carbon free, capture carbon and sequester it, deslainate sea water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation - so allowing us to develop wastelands for habitation rather than ripping into forests and depeleting rivers; and we'd have to energy to recycle all our waste. So how is overpopulation 'the' problem - and do you not see the great potential for evil inherent in such a view?

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. — Athena

That's a false value. The aim is 'sustainable in the foreseeable future' - not unlimited. That said, with the possible exception of helium, I don't see us running out of anything anytime soon. Given abundant clean energy, we can recycle our waste - mince it all up, strip out the metals, oils, glass, chemicals - and re-use them.

That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child. — Athena

Demographics is complicated. A one child policy doesn't merely reduce population. It ages the population. Also, in China there was such a preference for male children (goodness knows why) female babies were left to die in the street. Years later, there's many men who can't find a wife. The very idea of population control is repugnant, and opens the door to evil - from forced abortion all the way upto genocide. If one can possibly avoid blaming the existence of people - anyone with a love of wisdom would naturally do so.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply. — Athena

Generally, literature on mining discusses resources it is economically rational to develop. The limiting factor is the availability of energy. So, as the richer deposits are mined out, deposits get deeper and further apart. Increasing amounts of rock needs to be crushed and heated to extract decreasing amounts of ore. This requires ever greater amounts of energy. With abundant clean energy, deposits that would have not been economical to develop using fossil fuels, can be developed - thus increasing supply for the foreseeable future.

The hope must be based on information and education for living with our reality. The planet can not afford dreams of no limits. And as for who must die so that others can live- who wants to live through what future generations are going to live through? Some may survive and be able to maintain civilization but I don't think this will happen if we do not work with the facts. And we must come together for these few people to have a chance. We will die but if we do things right, they have a chance of living. — Athena

That's what the left wing, anti-capitalist green commie movement have been saying for the past 50 years, and I'm saying that it's not true. Overpopulation is not a problem, and nor is limits to resources. It's an anti-capitalist green commie misrepresentation of the reality; that with limitless clean energy from magma, we can have far greater prosperity, for many more people, and do so sustainably.

I endorse much of what you have written. Good people do tend to get angry when they see the immense potency of value being wasted away. I think that your frustration with those who do not understand the need (and power) of concerted effort towards the improvement of society is justified. I think the only pertinent thing to keep in mind would be that there are hidden yet dazzling diamonds in the sand.

Yeah, I think that cooperation at the highest level is vital (that is why I had earlier alluded to the fact that micro-level action seems to be more significant right now, which is good, but not perfect). Recent announcements, such as India announcing its goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions, are appreciable, yet there is scope for improvement. I also agree that mixed economies are probably the best bet since imbalanced approaches do not seem to provide comprehensive solutions. Magma energy looks like an immensely interesting idea! I will surely look into this — DA671

Please do: here's a link:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Perhaps you'll have better luck advertising it than I - I'm not a very socialble person. I tend to hammer people with facts, and expect them to change their minds, and get frustrated when they don't. I'm not a salesman, and I don't want to stand in the way of my own ideas.

Sometimes, a mist can obscure our ability to see the light. However, I am optimistic that it exists-and it is getting stronger. I have met others like you who, instead of falling prey to unbridled pessimism, wish to contribute towards making the world a happier place for all via the careful use of technology and investment in green energy. It's particularly heartening to see many young people supporting these ideas, sometimes in defiance of the views of their elders. The change will come as long as we remember the worth of combined effort. Everybody hopes some for growth and preservation, and others for destruction. However, hope remains in all of us, and I believe therein lies the strength of true and realistic hope. Best of luck to you for your future endeavours! — DA671

Thank you, but I must point out the significant difference between my own position and the 'green' movement. I advocate for sustainable capitalism. I do not approve of the left wing 'green commie' agenda. I accept the climate and ecological crisis is a problem, but believe it's one that can be solved in such a way as to provide for a prosperous sustainable future. I'm not a vegan cyclist, envious of wealth. I believe magma energy will allow us (human beings) to raise the living standards of the 3 or 4 billion poor people - to first world standards, sustainably - and that's an enormous economic opportunity for everyone.

You keep on hammering on magma energy but is it indeed the safe answer to all our energy problems? How do you know the magma gods won't turn against us? In iceland it works, but there live only half a million of people. That's about 20 000 times less than the global population! Magma in Iceland resides under a thin surface. That's not the case for many countries, just like the Sun doesn’t shine everywhere to turn into usable energy.
Isn't the hammering too frolic? — Cornwell1

First, we need to make a distinction between the geothermal energy Iceland have developed, and magma energy. They are not the same. Iceland's deepest geothermal well - IDDP, is a hydrothermal well. The Nasa research envisages drawing energy driectly from magma. The estimated size of the US resource alone is '50,000 - to 500,000 quad.' To put that in context, 40 years later, global energy demand is only 650 quad (quadrillion btu.)

Safe? No, nothing is safe. Everything is a risk. 500 people a year die falling out of bed. There are 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire, and 1500 globally, NASA have claimed, can provide the world with an effectively limitless source of heavy duty clean energy. Here is the link:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8820719D/abstract

Knowing which technology is right or wrong usually comes after the fact. — Cornwell1

Fair point given the history of coal, oil and gas production, but NASA researched magma energy from the mid 1970's to late 1980's - and concluded it was a viable source of virtually limitless clean energy. I think the Regan administration must have discontinued it, but then there was President Clinton - and his Vice President, Al Gore - the inconvenient truth guy. How did VP Al Gore not join the dots on the climate crisis and magma energy? Instead - frack for oil and gas with one hand, and tax consumers into poverty with the other? It's obviously wrong, and it won't work to secure the future.

That's exactly what science has almost done! — Cornwell1

On page 11 - you wrote:

Despite of all this technology? Because all of this technology. — Cornwell1

I responded:

Not really, because it's the wrong technology applied for the wrong reasons. It's science used as a tool, in pursuit of ideological ends, rather than developing and applying technology for reasons rational to a scientific understanding of reality. — karl stone

I refer you to the answer I gave some time ago.

I express my profuse apologies if anything I said came off as rude/offensive. As I have said elsewhere, I do have a lot to learn, and that starts when the single-minded focus on "I" ends. — DA671

It's not you. It's me. I'm angry and despondent; not without reason, but it's nothing you've done. I'm venting, and when I'm done - no doubt I'll feel suitably ashamed.

Cooperation instead of competition, generally. At least on the micro-level, I do see it a lot where I live. Small business owners coming together to fight for their rights and locals demonstrating together for a pothole near a house isn't uncommon. Of course, more needs to be done. — DA671

I need cooperation at the highest level - to develop and apply magma energy technology, but otherwise favour competition. As an economic ideology, communism has failed everywhere it's been tried, and often resulted in genocide. That said, too much freedom is also often the cause of great suffering. Mixed economies are the reality; but mixed economies responsible to a scientific understanding of reality, would take the sustainability crisis very seriously, and cooperate to develop magma energy.

I was referring to their claim about them looking beyond themselves. I have seen people who do so, and I hope I can learn something from them. People are selfish, but there are also individuals like you who care about others and the ever-pervasive issue of myopic selfishness. I used to think that working together was a platitude, but I do not think so anymore, because it does have the capacity to bring change (such as the farmers' protest in India) and instil joy in the souls of countless people. — DA671

You've perhaps heard the story of Pandora's box - that contained all the evils of the world. When opened, they were released, but in the bottom of the box there remained hope. I'm having trouble finding it. The fact there's a limitless source of clean energy - that could be developed and built quite rapidly, and could provide the energy necessary to secure a prosperous sustainable future for all humankind, doesn't seem hopeful to anyone other than me. I'm trying to understand why; and think that perhaps, beset by all the evils of the world - it's impossible for people to believe there's hope!

Holey cow! So we all should bow to the tyranny of science? — Cornwell1

No. You should fuck everything up and become extinct!

I do not disagree with you entirely! I think that your point about many people focusing on their selfish and limited interests undoubtedly deserves attention. As I have said in my replies to Schopenhauer1, we certainly have to work together to address many of our contemporary issues. It would not be possible to do so without a change in one's mindset. No man is an island. — DA671

Work together? What on earth does that mean?

I only wanted to concur with the idea that there are good people in the world who do positive deeds, sometimes without the expectation of any fame or material wealth (which might be why they are not always known). Therefore, I think that hope for a better future continues to persist. I am sorry if my reply seemed to ignore what you had said; I did not intend to do so. Have a delectable day! — DA671

Cornwell1 didn't say 'there are many good people in the world.' You did. You're agreeing with yourself; thus proving my conjecture that human beings are profoundly selfish; and demonstrating the mendacity of your 'work together' platitude.

I agree. Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place. — DA671

So the first time you've spoken to Cornwell1 in the past two weeks is now, to disagree with my post - when I'm right here? Why is that?