Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator?
— karl stone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe — Devans99

Anthropic principle.

So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong
— karl stone
— Devans99

Right and Wrong are mathematical. The Nazis did what was pleasurable for them in the short term, but they were wrong because it was painful for them in the long term (loosing the war). — Devans99

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain — Devans99

This is how you defined right and wrong earlier - now it's long term and short term. I'm done.

Devans99
335
↪diesynyang If everyone was doing the right thing, the world would be a happy place.[/quote]

Girlfriend asks - do these jeans make my bum look fat?

No dear. It's your giant fat bum that makes your giant fat bum look big!

Later, why am I sleeping on the sofa? I did the right thing!

Science points to a creator of the universe (of some form). I do find it reassuring to know the universe was designed rather than just a random occurrence. — Devans99

Really? What exactly, in science points to a creator?

That makes the tribe as a whole wrong and unpopular with other tribes. They would not last long as a tribe. — Devans99

It's a hypothetical example used to illustrate an idea - the idea being that right and wrong are fundamentally a sense, that works on knowledge (false or otherwise.) It's like me saying imagine there was a four seater plane crashed high in the mountains... And you saying, "Awww no, a Sesna can't fly that high." So what? What does that have to do with whether cannibalism is inherently right or wrong?

The Nazis were wrong and they paid the price for it. — Devans99

Were they? So you're the absolute arbiter of right and wrong, are you? So, what you're saying is - ordinary people did what they did, believing and knowing it was wrong. No! They acted on lies, but they believed it was right.

because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition
— karl stone

Right and wrong are mathematical concepts:

Right = pleasure>pain
Wrong = pleasure<pain — Devans99

Finding out one is wrong is not at all pleasurable - as you pointed out in regard to atheists. If right is pleasure greater than pain, we should allow people to believe whatever they like, and should not strive to understand, nor communicate understanding. Science would grind to a halt if that were true. But it is by disproving others, potentially causing them pain - science moves forward. Is that wrong? Surely, you must agree it's not wrong - or you'd be wrong. In which case, you're wrong!

Doesn't make sense, does it?

At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways.
— karl stone

1) Science addresses facts about reality.

2) Religion addresses our relationship with reality.

Apples and oranges. — Jake

Creative editing on your part. Science was only one of the disciplines I said, grew out of religion. There was also philosophy, politics, law, economics etc... do they not address our relationship to reality?

Or to put it another way: bananas and bananas!

I'm agnostic leaning towards Deism. — Devans99

Oh, okay - the 'something out there somewhere' view of the universe. You reject religion - that would require some sort of discipline and standards from you, but wish to retain the comforting sense that someone is on overall charge? That's convenient! lol...

I'm agnostic on epistemic grounds. I know I don't know if God exists or not, so I don't worry about it. I focus on what I can know. However, I think there's a distinction to be made between God and religion. I know religion is bunk! It's the political philosophy of ages past - and there's no basis to assume religion is morally or intellectually superior to anything written today.

Evil = Wrong = What is pleasurable in the short term (and painful in the long term). People are fundamentally not evil; they are fundamental Good (=Right) because its in their own interests to be right. Being Evil (=Wrong) is in no-ones best interest. — Devans99

Evil is just a word - meant to denote extreme forms of wrong. But it's a matter of perspective, and belief. Imagine, for example - someone killed a person and tore out their heart and ate it. That's evil, right? But if your tribe believes that eating the heart of a vanquished enemy will give you his strength - then killing and cannibalism are good. You not only defended the tribe, but increased your ability to defend the tribe.

This is important, because consider the Nazis - indoctrinated with false beliefs. They were not even religious beliefs, but pseudo-scientific ideas about a hierarchy of racial types. Acting on those idea - just following orders, they murdered millions of people, and they thought it right and good.

The point I'm coming to is this - because right and wrong is a sense, not a definition, it matters what people believe. It matters that they know what's true, because false belief can justify any degree of evil - and make you believe it good.

How does atheism correlate with sadism?
— karl stone

Both Atheists and Theists try to spread their beliefs. Both beliefs are wrong but Atheism makes people unhappy and some Atheists use this to inflict pain on people. Theism in contrast makes people happy. — Devans99

So where in the world are there atheists indoctrinating children under threat of violence, social taboo, and eternal damnation? Nowhere! It would be considered child abuse and rightly so. Yet religion does this all the time.

How does atheism make people unhappy? It might make religious people unhappy - but there's nothing inherently unhappy about atheism. Life is a miracle on its own merits. It doesn't need to be gussied up with fairy tales to make it worthwhile. But if you indoctrinate a child with powerful philosophical concepts from infancy - and then dash those ideas in adulthood, you have an unhappy adult. But whose to blame? I say - the child abuser!

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind.
— karl stone

^Wait... fair enough, you haven't really made your point clear. So, you are saying that religious people has a "Good Brain" or "Good Mind"? and can you define those term for me to understand : D

Brain - lump of grey matter in the skull
Mind - contents of understanding



why didn't you list any?
— karl stone

Some of it are :

- The View that we as human, have problem, and most of those problem comes from "Desire", "Desire" that implanted since birth.

- The view that human, on the deepest core, is evil (Psychology term is "tend to do evil")

- The view that there are chaos in this world, and without "Order" we won't be happy.

- The View that, under the sun (or in the universe) none are eternal.

- The view that we won't be happy even if we are able to satisfy all of our impulse. Happiness doesn't come from us satisfying our "Desire"/"Impluse" (Is an ancient idea, but epicurus make it popular I think).

- The view that to strive, we must suffer (or not avoiding pain).

- ETC[/quote]

Oh, right - so you're a Buddhist. I find it quite difficult to relate to Buddhists, because they suppress their emotions, wants and other natural impulses. How can you not see that as disabling?

And yet, these people whose intelligence is supposedly impaired have dominated human culture for at least thousands of years. This consistent record of successful adaptation suggests that, generally speaking, religious people are modeling human reality pretty darn well. — Jake

As example, Catholicism dominated Western culture to a degree unimaginable today for 1,000 years, and continues to have a billion members, while few people could accurately quote anything any scientist has said, if they could even name a scientist.

Another example, the current President. Although he lies with almost every sentence, and shows every appearance of being a moron, he is President and we are not. His success at reaching his goals suggests he is modeling reality pretty darn well, at least better than his many experienced and intelligent competitors.

Your theory...

In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.
— karl stone

... is generally sound.

But you aren't applying your own theory very well when you consistently ignore the human reality.[/quote]

Humankind is struggling from animal ignorance, into human knowledge over time. At one time, religion was the best understanding we could muster - but that was overtaken in all sorts of ways. From religion, all manner of specialist fields of knowledge grew - politics, philosophy, economics, law, science.

Each of these specialisms dropped an epistemology of faith - whereas religion retains that epistemology. i.e. it's true because the Good Book says so. It's not good enough in any other area of knowledge - because each of those would move forward, they have to be able to correct mistakes on an ongoing basis. Religion can't do that because it purports to be the word of God - the absolute truth, and requires unquestioning belief, not inquiry.

What do you we find when religion and specialist fields of inquiry come into conflict? People getting murdered, and not by those who favor inquiry. The religious kill people to maintain the ignorance of faith, and that, until very recently, has been the nature of civilization.

^I think (For now) the only factor that made up intelligence is IQ. Hmmm, you are free to teach me more though : D — diesynyang

IQ is not an individual quality. It's a statistical measure of intelligence relative to that of others. So, i really don't know what you're saying here.

^Hmmm, not exactly, I think religious belief and intelligence has really weak correlation. Some of the people that we could deem smart, are religious people. Example : Blaise Pascal, Fyodor Dostoevsky — diesynyang

Right, but that's a good brain - not a good mind. It really would help if you'd understood the point I was making before replying.

^I agree with this, but you must understand that in religion, there are many concept that is real in it. — diesynyang

Must I understand that? If I must - why didn't you list any?

I'm not religious myself but it seems to me that Atheists are mentally impaired; there is no firm evidence either way for/against God but there is a simple choice between glass half full and glass half empty and Atheists choose empty; to the determent of themselves and those unfortunate enough to be around them. Atheism also seems to correlate with sadism; which is unhealthy mentally. — Devans99

How does atheism correlate with sadism? Are you saying we should let everyone believe whatever they like - and that contradicting someone is an act of cruelty? I could not disagree more. If Dawkins were forcing people to read his books, that would be cruel. And worse, if he threatened people with everything from social exclusion to everlasting torture if they didn't believe every word he said, that would be intolerable.

First:

Good = Right
Evil = Wrong

Then:

Right as what is right in the long term
Wrong as what is right in the short term

Long term > short term, so long term is the most important; we should strive to make the ‘right’ / ‘good’ decisions.

Examples of good/right (right in the long term): Exercise, helping people
Examples of evil/wrong (right in the short term): Sweets, harming other people

Any alternative definitions? — Devans99

Right and wrong is a sense - like the aesthetic sense, or sense of humour. Seeking to define what is right and wrong is difficult for that reason. It's like trying to define art, or define funny - it's a matter of judgement, and of perspective. The world is complex - and the "moral sense" for want of a better term - applies to any and everything - and across time, insofar as one factors that into the equation. There's no inherent reason one must think long term. That's also a value judgement. Sometimes, it's not helpful to think long term - like in a fight.

Where it gets interesting, is Moses coming down the mountain with his stone tablets - or, to be more realistic, when hunter gatherers forged an agreement about right and wrong, pinned it on God for the sake of objective authority, and joined together to form society - in which everyone lived by the rules.

Clearly, there's a difference between a reflexive sense of right and wrong, and a set of rules carved in stone. The moral sense will always update itself in relation to circumstances, whereas - a set of rules carved in stone is liable to become ever more anachronistic over time. We see this in the values set out in religious texts - which were perfectly appropriate in the primitive context in which they were written - but that now, inspire terrorists to seek to impose their dogmatic beliefs and values through violence, upon a world to which those values are no longer relevant or useful!

I think Intelligence is made up of following two factors:

- Correctness. How right/wrong you get it
- IQ. How complex a concept you can handle

- So it’s possible for a genius to be wrong in a very complex way.
- Or a retard may get it right and not know why.

I think right/wrong are partially hormonal; adrenaline is released for threat = wrong situations. Dopamine is released as a reward = right situations. People who get it wrong habitually are reacting to adrenaline rather than dopamine.

The ability to make and follow through on the right decision relates to willpower which is not related to IQ.

An example of someone who’s intelligent but gets it wrong would be Richard Dawkins; he’s mainly motivated by sadism so reaches the wrong conclusions, but does so in a complex way so as to confuse people. — Devans99

I disagree. I think intelligence is made up of two factors:

1) Conception of reality in the mind
2) Neural connections in the brain

The intelligence of religious people is impaired by belief in something they can't know; such that the contents of the mind effectively disable the brain. The brain works better dealing with truth. It experiences cognitive dissonance less, and is able to make more dense, straightforward and closer connections. In short, the brain that models reality the closest works best.

Seventeen pages is a bit much to ask of anyone - but I do recommend the opening post. You're right, that all the world's energy needs could be supplied from renewables.

A patch of solar panels 450 miles square - would provide the same amount of energy used in the world, and not just electricity, but all the oil, coal and gas too. The problem with placing them in the Australian desert, as per your suggestion - is transmitting that energy. There's a significant energy loss over long distances - particularly at lower voltages, due to resistance in transmission cables.

The reason I suggest floating solar panels is that using electricity to convert sea water into hydrogen, stores that energy in a convenient form, which can be used both to power traditional power stations - producing electricity transmitted by the normal means, but can also be used for transport, aluminium, cement and steel works - big users of energy, with little in the way of adaptation. Furthermore, it overcomes the 'night-time' issue.

I have addressed the question of rough and stormy seas by suggesting a submersible design - but clearly, they would need to be quite robust regardless of that issue.

There's a calculation for the world's energy needs in solar panels here:

https://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

That includes this shocking, but illustrative comparison:

"According to the United Nations 170,000 square kilometers of forest is destroyed each year. If we constructed solar farms at the same rate, we would be finished in 3 years."

Beyond the opening post on page one - I explain the mistake that brings us to a place where we are destroying forests at such a rate, but are unable to apply the technologies we have - which we need to apply to secure a sustainable future. But it is technologically possible to supply the world's energy needs from renewable sources without breaking a sweat!

So if I were to walk around all day every day with a loaded gun in my mouth you would consider that a successful management of my handgun, given that the gun hasn't gone off.

See? It's not possible to have a rational discussion with true believers of any stripe. — Jake

Is that a rational argument? It's not an accurate analogy. Why have you got a handgun in your mouth? There are reasons we created nuclear weapons. There are reasons for the arms race. They're not good reasons. They're an ideologically premised misapplication of technology. But accepting those ideological concepts as true for the purposes of this argument, it's not insane to match your enemy's military capabilities. It's collective irrationality - not insanity.

Why am I relentlessly addressing the subject of our relationship with knowledge? Because the future of human civilization will be determined by that relationship. — Jake

I agree. I'm addressing the same issue - and explaining the phenomena you describe, in a way that offers the opportunity of a sustainable future. You seem angered by that - like I've broken your spear. The spear with which you stabbed people in the heart.

My message is that we can adapt to the revolutionary new era which the success of science has created if we try. But as your posts illustrate, a great many people instead invest all of their intelligence and effort in to trying to cling to the past. — Jake

It wasn't a page ago where you said - we cannot adapt fast enough. It's not what you're saying if you would seek to put the brakes on progress in some vague undefined way - and it isn't what you're saying if you imagine there's an adult in the room who will tell we children to stop playing with fire. Really - what you're saying is, you're playing God, and will get your comeuppance. It's the Prometheus story. You would chain us to a rock and have an eagle eat our liver. It's an old, old story - and if you still don't understand the way in which I account for this issue - there's little hope you'll ever understand.

You have good intentions. — Jake

Yes, but no! I have good intentions and good ideas. I do not have the kind of stupid good intentions that pave the path to hell.

You just don't understand that an era of knowledge explosion is an environment very different than an era of knowledge scarcity, requiring a different adaptive response. — Jake

Yes, I do. My entire argument describes the correct adaptive response to a new kind of knowledge, and explains why it's the correct response.

The "more is better" response which was entirely appropriate in an era of knowledge scarcity can not be automatically transferred to a knowledge explosion era just because it's a routine that we're comfortable with. — Jake

"More is better" does not describe my argument at all. It barely describes what's happening in the world right now. I gave you three examples of 'less is better' human beings have put into practice you simply haven't acknowledged. Your cogniphobia is not uncommon. It's a tale as old as the hills - and it's updated in every era, Prometheus, Pandora, Frankenstein, Transcendence (film with Johnny Depp.) The mad scientist theme is big in Hollywood - and is ultimately part of the suppression of science by religious, political and economic ideology.

What I'm arguing for is responsibility to science as a true description of reality, as the basis for the application of technology.

That's not "more is better" - is it? It's a means of discriminating good from bad. So why do you keep saying it is? Is it so you can pretend your cruel spear does not lie broken at your feet?

We have thousands of nukes aimed down our own throats. Are we handling it? — Jake

Well, we haven't used them in anger but once. Two bombs - but part of the same offensive. Terrible thing - haven't done it again. So, given the collective irrationality argument - yes, we're handling it so far.

Except that there is no plan to take us to this level of sanity, and vague dreamy utopian visions have proven incapable of taking us there. — Jake

Thanks for your opinion, but you haven't really come clean, have you? I've asked about your motives for relentlessly banging your doom drum, and you've been less than forthcoming. It's not intellectual merit, because both Praxis and I have destroyed your argument. That's what tends happen on forums like this. Yet here you are, still banging your drum. Are you religious - and anti science? Are you simply misanthropic - you hate people? What is it with you?

No offense Karl, but I give up, you are too willing to blatantly ignore reality to take your theories seriously. I'm glad you're on the forum though. — Jake

I do find your views offensive - as I've already told you. I find your lack of effort, and hope, and your unwillingness to change your mind offensive. I find your shallow mischaracterization of my arguments offensive - this repeated utopian mantra for example. Your ostensible politeness doesn't make up for any of that. So saying no offense - stands in stark contrast to the fact that you're the most offensive person imaginable. A closed minded doom monger - who's underlying message is don't hope and don't try. That's offensive. Goodbye.

You're not obligated to have a plan for human transformation of course. But the "more is better" philosophy your technological suggestions are built upon depend upon such a transformation, for the simple reason that in our current state of maturity we can't handle more power. — Jake

Yes, we can handle it. If we know what's true, and do what's right in terms of what's true - if we value the sustainability of our existence, by those principles alone, we can handle everything technology has to offer.

But let us be more specific. Consider smallpox. A terrible disease. So incredibly virulent - it was once weaponized, and then it was banned - and recently, utterly destroyed. It no longer exists anywhere on the planet. We did that despite being divided by various pre-scientific - religious, political and economic ideologies, into competing factions. The opportunity existed to do what was good and right for everyone, and we took it. A clear case of - less is better. And it's not the only such case. We routinely ban things because they're bad - CFC's for instance. How does 'more is better' explain that. DDT - another example. Your thesis seems to have a lot of holes in it.

If you, or anyone, had a credible plan for how a critical mass of the human population might come to accept "science as truth", that enhanced human maturity might make it safe for us to continue to acquire new powers, including your technological suggestions. Your "science as truth" idea has value in that is shows that you realize that human transformation is necessary, but so far it's just another utopian theory. — Jake

It's not Utopian in the least. That implies how the world is now - is how it cannot but be, and the ideas I'm putting forward are unrealistic. What I'm saying is quite different. This isn't how the world should be, as demonstrated by the fact we are barreling toward extinction - fully conscious of the fact, and with the ability to prevent it - but are somehow unable to apply the technology we have. That's wrong. I only seek to put right what is wrong.

You're intent on aligning yourself with reality, which is good, and so I'm attempting to show you that at the current time the reality is that human beings show every sign of being significantly insane (nukes etc) and thus proposals which aim to give us even more power are irrational. If you, or anyone, had a credible plan for how to cure the insanity at the scale necessary, then that would obviously create a new situation where more things are possible. — Jake

I disagree. Consider a traffic jam. By your analysis, you consider each motorist insane - but they're not. They are all behaving perfectly rationally. It's the situation that's insane - a collective irrationality. The nuclear stand-off is insane, but that's not because those involved are insane. They are behaving rationally to create an irrational situation. It's the ideological divisions between them that provide the motives - ideas that are contrary to a scientific understanding of reality.

In reality, we all evolved on this planet - and are all members of the same species. The evolution of our particular branch of life is millions of years old. Civilization is 15,000 years old at the most - a veritable blink of an eye. Science is a few hundred years old - but it is the older truth. It was true before we evolved, before we developed civilization, it's eternally and universally true. Our mistake is to suppress that truth relative to ideas we made up in the blink of an eye, a moment ago.

That is the basis of our collective irrationality, that's the reason we can't apply the technology we have - to avoid what we can clearly see coming. If you're telling me that setting out that truth - humankind will not see that it's true, and take it on board as a rationale to apply the technology we need to apply to survive - then maybe you're insane, but humankind is not.

All we need, in my view - is an assurance we can do so safely, and that it won't transform everything and everyone - as you seem to imagine is necessary. It's neither necessary nor desirable that we turn the world upside down - and this leads to the principle of existential necessity I described earlier. Given that principle, we can safely accept a scientific understanding of reality in common as the basis to apply technology "insofar as is necessary to avoid extinction." All else remains equal - at least in the medium term. Longer term, I think we'll come to rely more and more on science as a lingua franca and level playing field for dealing with global issues, but that's for future generations to decide. Immediately, we can safely limit the implications, and should do so.

What is your plan to remove such ideological irrationality from the equation? Ok, we need to accept "science as truth". But how? Unless you have some kind of specific credible plan for human transformation to share with us, then your "science as truth" religion is really little different than "the world will be saved when we all become good Christians". — Jake

I have no plan. Do you imagine I need one? I rather think I don't. I think that people know truth when they see it, and it compels them. They will compel themselves and eachother. How could one plan that? You mention Christianity - but if it weren't for a long series of unplanned and somewhat unlikely events, it would have been plowed under by time, and we'd all be worshiping Sol Invictus - or more probably, science as revealing the word of Sol made manifest in Creation.

You keep saying that we need to align ourselves with reality, which is a valid concept in theory, but then you decline to align your theories with the reality of the human condition. — Jake

I wrote three paragraphs together above on the subject; which support the conclusion that truth is utterly compelling. What 'human condition' do you speak of? Are you attempting to claim there's some more fundamental naturalistic reality than that?

Reality: Nuclear weapons exist, and nobody's utopian dream prevented that from happening, nor seems capable of fixing the problem. Real world fact Karl. — Jake

Not real. Nation states are not real things. They're just made up. There's no such thing as an indigenous population - we're all random collections of hunter gatherer tribes who formed civilization by agreeing to believe convenient lies. Those lies bring us within sight of our end - and you think I need a plan to compel people to embrace the truth? They will embrace it or die.

If you are proposing that your utopian dream can accomplish what none other in history has succeeded in doing, ok, make that argument in some detail. — Jake

Shall I make it so long no-one reads it? Least of all you!

Do we agree that nuclear weapons exist, and that so far, we've found no way to get rid of them? — Jake

I don't believe in nuclear weapons. That's the level of denial I'm dealing with. But can we agree that science is - for all intents and purposes, a true description of reality - and thus far, we barely pay lip service to that truth?

Could we maybe agree that you actually have no credible plan for how we might arrive at a utopian fantasy world where we don't get sucked in to "ideologically driven misapplication of technology", and that nobody else has such a credible plan either? — Jake

Could we maybe agree that if we recognized the fact that science is a true description of reality, we'd have no good reason to build nuclear weapons? That indeed, the fundamental motive for building nuclear weapons is ideological disagreement?

Yes, of course, there are many wonderful theories about human transformation. We should all meditate, we should all become good Christians, we should join the Marxist revolution, we should accept science as truth, etc etc. We've been working on these projects for literally thousands of years, and guess what, we still aimed a bunch of huge bombs down our throats. — Jake

If we agree to the above - then setting 'accepting science as truth' among religious and political ideologies would be absurd. Science is objectively true - and that's not a matter of belief. To consider scientific truth on a par with religious and political ideology is just as absurd as it is for me to say I don't believe nuclear weapons exist.

Your intentions are excellent, and you pursue them with determination and durability, which merits our respect. But as an engineer, you've fallen victim to sloppiness. You've failed to think holistically, and thus you've failed to account realistically for a very important component of the situation you are attempting to address. Us. Humans. — Jake

Here's something about us humans you don't know. We are drawn to truth. Truth is powerfully compelling - precisely because we are built by the function or die algorithm of evolution, in relation to causal reality - from the DNA up, to be correct to reality. That's a fundamentally truthful relation to reality that pre-dates intellectual awareness by a very long way. Consider, for example - the way a bird builds a nest before it lays eggs. Is that because it knows - and plans ahead? No! It's because those birds that didn't build a nest before they laid eggs are extinct. Surviving birds necessarily account for this temporal dimension of reality in their unconscious behavior.

That's how deeply truth is ingrained in surviving organisms - and fundamentally, that's why we are drawn to truth. We know in our bones truth is important - and it is to this human being I make my appeal. Not the ideologically confused identities we wear - but the animal underneath, because that animal is right. That animal has been tested from the DNA up through to its physiology and behavior to be correct to reality - else be rendered extinct.

The problem is intellectual awareness is limited. We have the same inherent compulsion toward truth, as demonstrated by the astonishing increase in knowledge over the past 15,000 years or so, of civilization. But the world is big and complex; and until very recently, we had little idea what was true. It's only 400 years ago we discovered the method to ascertain and distinguish reliable knowledge, from the wide - if not infinite range of hypothetical possibilities. In lieu of the ability to reliably establish truth - we made stuff up, and called it true. We built our civilizations on made up ideas we called truth, and then - this was our big mistake, when we discovered the method for establishing truth - we suppressed it to protect those made up ideas.

The group consensus you are speaking on behalf of wants to strap a rocket to a bicycle so the bike can go 300mph. The group consensus is very proud of the rocket and the speeds it can reach. And it's forgotten all about the 10 year old kid who will have to steer the bike. — Jake

We have used science in many ways. It's difficult to ignore the fact science surrounds us with technological miracles - and horrors like nuclear weapons. What we have not done however, is believe science is true. We continue to believe the ideas we just made up - and draw from those ideas our identities and purposes. We tap into the power of truth, but then use it as directed by made up ideas. It's those made up ideas that provide us with the motive to build nuclear weapons. This is where your rocket bike analogy comes in - but accepting that science is a true description of reality, and drawing our identities and purposes from truth, there's no reason to apply science in such a manner.

So I don't believe in nuclear weapons. You do. They are the product of your false belief - not of science, but of science disbelieved.

To be fair, the doom part isn’t nonsensical. The alleged cause and hint of a solution is. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m glad there are people like you thinking of solutions. And on that note I’ll take my leave of the topic. Sorry if I’ve muddied the water by engaging the nonsense. — praxis

Think nothing of it - you wouldn't have stopped Jake banging his drum of doom if you'd ignored it. I tried that. You kept him occupied if anything, and sank his battleship with your precision remarks. Please don't flee on my account. You're capable of philosophical reflection, and not mere repetition of prejudicial assumption! But if you have to go - So long, and thanks for all the fish!

Yeah, bye. — unenlightened

Oh, I was right the first time!

Maybe taking the piss is the only strategy left to me - did you think of that?
— karl stone

Yes, that's exactly what it looks like. — unenlightened

See, you're getting it! And there was I thinking you were utterly humorless!

Argument by ridicule is a really pathetic, short-sighted tactic. Please just stop. You are talking to concerned serious and intelligent people who are at bottom your allies. Stop being a prat. — unenlightened

That's the second time today I've been taken to task for my sense of humor. In my estimation you're free to think I'm a prat, and free to say so. A little edge is no bad thing - we are human afteral. If you'd argue I should treat ridiculous ideas seriously - can you tell me why, and convince me it's a good idea to do so? Or is this just about people's feelings? Because if it is - let me assure you, Jake isn't nearly as pissed off at what I said to him as I am at having to address his doom mongering nonsense over and over and over and over... without being able to effect it in the least by anything I say. Maybe taking the piss is the only strategy left to me - did you think of that?

Have you heard of the ocean cleanup project? (https://www.theoceancleanup.com)

I think it's at least partly funded by recycling, but in any case, I believe it's a relatively low cost and high benefit solution. — praxis

I have, but last time I heard of it - not too long ago, it was still in the test phase. In theory, I think it a wonderful idea. Whether it works in practice is another question. I'm sorry to have to say this, but that assessment should be really quite brutal. There's a tendency to conflate the virtue of the aim with the effectiveness of the technology - producing ostensibly virtuous white elephants. It was designed by young people too, I seem to recall - and so there's a lot of people wanting it to work. Including me - but if it doesn't work, I'd scrap it without a moment's hesitation.

We have thousands of hair trigger hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throat. Do you consider this a successful adaptation which increases our chances of survival? — Jake

No. Absolutely not. I consider it an ideologically driven misapplication of technology. Science as a tool, and not as a rule for the conduct of human affairs. I consider it using the tools without reading the instructions. Am I going to run out of ways to say this before it clicks? It's the consequence of an historical error - exemplified by the Church imprisoning Galileo for saying the earth orbits the sun. Science as an understanding of reality was suppressed relative to religious, political and economic ideology, even while science was used by the industrial revolution, and by military powers.

Yes, that's it, you get it now. To be more precise, they (as a group) have a lack of knowledge about the HUMAN reality, just as you do. The "more is better" paradigm assumes that humans can successfully manage any power which arises out of that process, irregardless of what rate that power emerges. That's simply false. Knowledge can be developed faster than maturity. The mismatch between these two rates is dangerous. That's simply true. — Jake

I understand it - but it's wrong. You identify a phenomenon, but do not identify the cause. The cause is described above.

There have been no devastating criticisms. I understand this particular issue (not all issues!) better than the rest of you. Sorry, not trying to be insulting, just providing a reality check.

Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children.
— karl stone

Praxis showed he has no interest in trying to meet that challenge, because he's not actually interested in this subject at all. As is his right. — Jake

Praxis spotted something I missed - and he's right. You say we are children playing with ever more dangerous toys - and so we should limit scientific progress. But who decides? Who is the adult in the room? You? No! It doesn't work, but you won't have it.

Yes, and one of our "needs and wants" is for a stable civilization which can well serve our descendants, instead of blowing up in our face due to arrogance, greed, and philosophical stubbornness. — Jake

So you think 7 billion people are all going to get into farming - do you? Sit around singing cum-by-yar while waiting on a giant pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle? If that appeals to you - go right ahead, but it's not an answer. People won't have it. They have needs and wants - like sending their children to a good school. So they have to make money. They gain knowledge and skills and sell them in the market - and it's a social good. Maybe they gain the knowledge and skills to improve crop yields - feeding more people from less land and water. The whole world benefits. You can't stop that. So why are you trying?

Is it because you get some cheap thrill from doom mongering - and hide that gross appetite behind the facade of anti-scientism?

I'm trying to describe an opportunity - not a diet regime, or a prison sentence.
— karl stone
— unenlightened

Less meat is not vegan, wearing a sweater is not a prison sentence. — unenlightened

No, but it's not a solution either. It is a hardship for a significant number of people in the world who have very little meat in their diet. And, like I told my mother - kids starving in Africa will gain no benefit from me eating my sprouts! Seriously though, our problems are not the consequence of too many people or insufficient resources. Malthus's famously incorrect prediction of mass starvation following from the disparity between the geometric rate of population growth, (2, 4, 8, 16 etc) and the arithmetic rate agricultural land can be developed (1, 2, 3, etc) proved incorrect. People are problem solvers - and to paraphrase the Martian we can "science the shit out of this!"

You have to have a car, because you have to live a long way from work because you don't get paid enough to afford to live where the work is and public transport is revolting and even more expensive than a car. So you contribute to the pollution that makes the city air so poisonous that you have to have an inhaler to survive in it. The travel time on congested roads and work leaves you neither time nor energy to cook your own food, so you have to eat prepackaged ready meals or takeaways, and so cannot properly control your own diet. So you have to buy supplement pills. — unenlightened

To paraphrase Job - Woe is me! I get where you're coming from but consider the possibilities that follow from abundant clean energy and producing fresh water. We can develop wastelands for agriculture and habitation - where previously, we had to gather in the river valleys, and burn down the forests. Consider telecommuting, and hydrogen powered vehicles, fish farming instead of trawling the oceans to death, warm homes from renewable energy, cool homes from renewable energy! Imagine automated hydroponic farms in the desert - using solar energy to produce as much food as anyone can eat. Think on what's possible if we can overcome this philosophical obstacle wherein, we have the knowledge and technology but are unable to apply it.

And you are so browbeaten by the propaganda you are subjected to day and night that you think this is freedom, and a healthy and contented existence a prison sentence. — unenlightened

No. I think it's a giant mess in a lot of ways - a moral victory in others. It's not the point. We cannot tear it all down and start again from scratch. That would be as bad or worse than carrying on as we are. We have to 'get there from here' - us, as who we are. The description of the error and its consequences is not a basis to junk everything, or anything. It's about reaching beyond ourselves to learn a lesson - and then bringing that lesson home and applying it very carefully. It's not about changing anything. It's about changing everything by looking at it differently.

The wrong path is changing the environment we inhabit faster than human beings can adapt to that environment. If you can reflect on this a bit, I think you will see this premise is actually not in conflict with your own premise. You feel we must align ourselves with reality or we will perish, for this is the law of nature. I agree with that. — Jake

More or less, but I don't agree we are unable to adapt quickly enough. If I thought that I wouldn't say anything. What would be the point? I'd just plaster on my smile and hope it lasted my lifetime. I'm speaking out because there's huge opportunity - because this technological adolescence is just the beginning, if it is not the end.

The problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus you are speaking on behalf of doesn't have a very sophisticated understanding of reality, specifically human reality. You observe the landscape and see a technical problem, because you like technical challenges. But fundamentally what we face is not a technical problem, but a human problem. Unlimited free clean energy would simply empower us to do more of the stupid stuff we are already doing. — Jake

What group consensus? I'm not in your head - and I don't agree with you. I don't know what this vague term 'group consensus' refers to. Humankind? Science? Politics? Capitalism? Philosophy? Please be specific.

Actually, the technical challenge is the least part of what I'm saying. It's not my area of expertise, and is not at all how I came to this issue. It began as a need to know what's true - a philosophical problem. And fundamentally, I'm saying the problem is a philosophical one: i.e. we devalue science relative to ideology.

The next problem, as seen from here, is that the group consensus has shifted the blind faith we used to have in religious clerics in to a blind faith in what I call the "science clergy". The obstacle here is that while scientists are indeed expert in the technical aspects of reality, they are really no better at understanding the human reality than any of the rest of us. And, the human reality is a very important component of the reality equation. Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. You can blame the weapons on religion or politicians or whoever you want, but the REALITY is that they exist, and we don't know how to get rid of them. And that "we" includes the science clergy. — Jake

I don't get this at all. You're saying that scientists are at the same time myopic specialists with a somewhat stereotypical lack of knowledge of the real world - and also the salesmen of a more is better paradigm? Something you've said 20 times already - without taking on board a single devastating criticism offered by anyone else. In the previous post for example, I spoke of how your ideas feed into right wing fears and insular politics, and you keep banging the same drum? Praxis showed there's no adult in the room to govern we so called children. I've put it to you that, because people have needs and wants - there's no stopping progress, yet here we are again. Talking about your ideas to the exclusion of my own. Jake - you have made no effort to understand what I'm saying, what you're saying is not right, and you're not helping.

Thus, blind faith in science or scientists is not warranted, just as it wasn't warranted in regards to religious clerics. — Jake

Science isn't about faith - it's precisely the opposite. It's about forming ideas and testing them to destruction, and only keeping the ones that cannot be destroyed. It's not blind, and it's not faith. But you don't even understand this. I've answered your beliefs several times. I have nothing else to say on the subject! I don't like being rude - so please, if it's your belief we are helpless - consider plastering a smile on your face and just hoping it lasts your lifetime.

I can go along with that. But with the emphasis on a good robust harness. At the moment, capitalist forces are at the wrong end of the harness - in the driving seat. — unenlightened

Imagine you are capitalism. Does that sound attractive to you? I'm trying to describe an opportunity - not a diet regime, or a prison sentence. I'm trying to explain that we don't have to back down, have less, go vegan - and see everything fall apart anyway, only slightly less rapidly.

Except that in a "more is better" knowledge economy characterized by accelerating social and technological change, whatever skills you develop are likely to go out of date before you're done needing them. As example, I just watched a documentary showing how robots are taking over many surgical tasks. It's not just factory workers who are at risk.

What this accelerating change does is infuse the society with considerable uncertainty, which generates fear, which eventually leads to masses of people doing stupid things like voting for President Dumpster. Dangerous wing wackos are rising to power all over the world, which illustrates that at least some of the forces at play are global, and not the result of local conditions.

Some of us will be able to develop skills that aren't quickly made obsolete by the market, that's true. That doesn't matter if large numbers of other people can't keep up, and thus become susceptible to persuasion by crackpot ideologues promising to "make America great again". Example, some of us are indeed thriving in this economy, while those who aren't thriving give us a leader who pulls us out of the Paris Agreement, humanity's best hope to avoid catastrophic climate change. — Jake

We see things quite differently, you and I - but it's not like I don't understand where you're coming from, nor indeed, where people voting for increasingly insular regimes are coming from either. I think you're right that it's fear based. The world is becoming an increasingly scary place as we progress down the wrong path - and if we continue, it'll only get worse.

It's cause and effect - the natural consequence of acting at odds to the actual nature of reality, best described by science, and mis-characterized by religious and political ideologies, as a context for economics. For example, it's a simple matter of fact we are unable - (and it would be unwise and premature) to accept, that the earth is a single planetary environment, and humankind is a single species. As a matter of fact, nation states are not real things - they're socially constructed. The world didn't come with borders painted on it, and similarly - an indigenous population is actually a somewhat random collection of hunter-gatherer tribes cobbled together into a civilization by all agreeing to convenient lies.

However, because we believe nation states are real things - we fear 'the other' - particularly in face of climate change, again caused by not acting in relation to scientific truth. We fear they will be driven by climate change to invade us, and thereby dilute our identity and prosperity. We see limits to resources, and imagine it's a zero sum game. But I would argue that by correcting the mistake we made way back when, we can multiply resources exponentially - tackle climate change and alleviate those fears.

Your approach is therefore in my view, hugely counter productive. More is better. Not indiscriminately more, as you seem to think I'm suggesting - but a careful more, where technology is applied in relation to science as truth to achieve sustainability.

Let me spell it out for you with a purely hypothetical example. I am a property developer called Grump, and you are a humble bricky. When times are good, I pay you well to build houses for me, and then lend you and your mates the money to buy one each. Times are good, so the value of the houses is high - everyone wants to own their own home. I pay your wages, and you pay me the mortgage, and everyone is happy. Then there is a downturn. I stop building houses, so you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and nor can your mates. You all have to sell up. Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying at the moment, and the value of the houses has gone down. They all go to auction, and I end up buying them at a very low price. Now I have the houses, the profit from selling high and buying low, and you still owe me the difference, plus you have to pay me rent. But don't worry, there are good times coming, and we can do it all again, because now I have even more money and I need to put it to work, and that means employing you again. I understand that this makes you angry, I understand that you don't want to believe it works this way, but wise up dude, it does. — unenlightened

I'm not angry at all. The crack about swearing was only for emphasis and hopefully, a chuckle. Sorry if it was misjudged.

I do not doubt that in individual transactions between parties in a capitalist economy there can be winners and losers, but there are mechanisms we invent to account for these like laws, and insurance. If what Grump did wasn't actually illegal - it probably should be illegal to offer a mortgage to an employee without insurance against redundancy.

In terms of the ideas I've put forward however, I'd argue that the ideological context of capitalism - as opposed to the scientific context that would ideally follow, had we accepted science as truth from 1630 - lends the motives for the disaster capitalism you allude to.

Take brexit as an example - a wildly false and divisive propaganda campaign incited the British to leave the EU in a manner that will very likely crash the economy, and provide the excuse for a rabidly right wing policy proscription to deal with the crisis.

Had we accepted science as truth, and integrated it on an ongoing basis since 1630 however - we'd be very different people in a very different world. It wouldn't be like this. We'd be more rational and honest - because science is rational and honest, and maybe such things wouldn't occur. Who can say? It's not what we did, and not who we are. We don't worship science as the revealed word of God made manifest in reality. But if we are to survive, we have to get there from here - and harnessing capitalist forces is indispensable to any possible solution to our problems.

I need to point out that capitalist economic interests do not equate to vast benefits. For us peasants, we float on the economic tide, and go up when the economy grows, and down when it contracts. But well managed capital prospers from downturns even more than from booms. When you can't pay the mortgage, someone else gets a cash bargain. So capitalists see advantages in conflict, war, and catastrophe, and not so much in stability, which explains why they should not be left in charge of things. — unenlightened

I could not disagree more without swearing!

First, consider the political and personal freedom provided for by a capitalist economy - compared to a command economy. In a command economy the state owns everything, and designs the production and distribution of goods and services from start to finish. This is necessarily oppressive. Any dissent requires the harshest of responses precisely because it's a threat to production upon which people depend. People are told what to do and when to do it, what to eat and wear - right down to what they think and say, must be controlled as a consequence of the economic model.

In a capitalist economy, it's a genuine miracle - that goods and services are produced and distributed as a consequence of people's free, and 'rationally self interested' choices. It's called the 'invisible hand' - an idea described by Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations" (1776.) I appreciate - it's not much fun being poor in a capitalist economy - but that's why one has to develop skills, or specialist knowledge - required by the market. It's that imperative that promotes the general good.

Third is an off-hand observation - but more or less valid nonetheless, that even the poor in modern capitalist societies have a better standard of living than medieval Kings - precisely because everyone is pursuing their rational self interest.

The fact the discussion is more interesting without my taking part is an unexpected, and not altogether welcome revelation. Nonetheless, there are a few things I couldn't let go by without commenting on them. The first is SSU's remarks about the apparent hysteria centered around Earth Day, 1970. I can think of two reasonable explanations for what proved to be somewhat exaggerated claims. The first is that science isn't an independent activity in a world ruled by ideological conceptions of reality. There's a political and economic context that imposes certain imperatives - that might be met by sensationalism.

The second is that in 1970 - there were very few computers. Scientists communicated through journals and correspondence - (that's snail mail to you and I.) It's difficult to overstate the benefits personal computing and the internet have brought to scientific endeavor; less yet large computers capable of crunching numbers on a massive scale. The quality of scientific information is thus much improved since 1970.


The second thing I'd dispute is this:

We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial. — unenlightened

For me, my life isn't confined to my current biological existence. It has a metaphysical dimension as a consequence of intellectual awareness. People have construed this dimension in many ways throughout the ages; but accepting a scientific understanding of reality, I'd suggest it implies the significance of genetic, intellectual and economic legacy carried forward by future generations. I believe this follows from a moral duty to the evolutionary struggle of previous generations that makes us who we are, and implies a moral obligation to use those abilities to further the interests of future generations.
I won't belabor the point by relating this back to the remarks above.

Next is this exchange between Jake and Janus:

Karl seems to feel that the human guidance system for the global technological machine can be successfully updated by some vague method that he can't seem to articulate beyond repeating "science as truth". Such vagueness seems acceptable to Karl, so he is up for full speed ahead on further construction of the global technological machine.
— Jake

Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed (except by dire circumstances beyond human control of course), and so karl stone is right to propose that the only hope for humanity's future lies in technological redirection to more sustainable technologies. — Janus

I'm proposing a political course of action to correct our mistaken relationship to science and technology. I argue that nation states should accept a scientific understanding of reality in common as a basis to apply technology. At the same time however, I don't want to upturn the ideological apple-cart upon which billions of people depend. I do want to claim the functionality inherent in the relationship between valid knowledge and causal reality - but I also want people, politics and economics to be able to accept it. So it's a very delicate matter. There are religious sensitivities, political and economic interests, and a not entirely spurious fear that science as truth will turn us all into robots, marching foursquare in identical denim overalls. We don't want that!

In my arguments, the prior authority science owns as a consequence of epistemic superiority to primitive ideologies is limited by the principle of existential necessity; i.e. if we don't address this - we'll die. Beyond that, science has no authoritative political implication. That established, we can safely accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, in place of our various ideological misconceptions of reality, as a basis for the application of technology - to address scientifically conceived problems like climate change, deforestation, over-fishing, pollution etc. In the simplest possible terms - I'd describe this strategy as 'knowing what's true, and doing what's right in terms of what's true.'

The last thing I want to address is this:

As I pointed out, it would require an immodest amount of power, to put it mildly, in order to regulate all scientific research and technology across the globe. You'd need some pretty big guns to force your policies on every nation in the world, as well as some kind of advanced surveillance system like a powerful AGI. — praxis

Although this comment is offered in relation to Jake's suggestion that we 'stop the world while he gets off' - I think it's a reasonable criticism to take on board and address in relation to my own ideas. It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen.

Hemlock is just never on the breakfast menu for me, and it seems to be always there for him - — unenlightened

Well, as Rudyard Kipling said to Charles Foster Kane:

"If you can keep your sled when all about you are losing theirs..."

Having read through the thread, it seems I've spoken to all the major concepts, in an argument it took me over twenty years to craft - and about which, therefore, I am as certain as it's possible for me to be.

I have begun with the evolutionary nature of life, and discussed the causal relationship that exists on many levels between surviving organisms, and reality. From the structure of DNA, to the physiology, behavior, and intellectual awareness of surviving organisms - the implication drawn, is that all life must be essentially correct to reality, else be rendered extinct.

I have discussed the evolutionary history of humankind, and the transition from a hunter-gatherer tribal way of life to multi-tribal society, leading unto civilization. I have suggested this required inventing/discovering God as an objective authority for law - to overcome the obstacle inherent in conflicting tribal hierarchies.

I have discussed the first formal presentation of scientific method by Galileo - and the reaction of the Church to that discovery - identifying this as the root cause of a mistaken relationship to scientific truth that persists unto this day.

I've sought to explain how this wrongful relationship to science, explains the existential dilemma we find ourselves in, wherein - we have the knowledge and the technology to address climate change, among other issues - but lack the political will, or economic rationale to apply it.

I have argued that, only by correcting our relationship to science - as valid knowledge of reality, to compare to the religious, political and economic ideologies we assume are true, can we hope to avoid being rendered extinct in the near future.

I have acknowledged the difficulties such a conclusion presents to ideologically arranged societies, and suggested we limit the implications of science as truth, to tackling the existentially necessary challenges we face first and foremost. I have identified the key challenge as producing renewable clean energy on a scale sufficient to meet the world's energy needs, plus the ability to produce abundant amounts of fresh water from sea water.

I have discussed at length - the particular technologies I believe should be applied forthwith, and described means to find the money to do so, in such a manner that fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted and burnt.

I believe that acting upon these ideas will set humankind on a sound footing for a long and glorious future - in the least disruptive manner possible, and I commend my arguments to my species. If the world is to be saved, this is how it can, and must be done. I believe it will work - and no other approach can, because, fundamentally - we must be correct to reality, else we shall be rendered extinct.

Should an engineer building a faster race car take in to account the abilities and limitations of the driver? Would doing so tend to make the car safer? Or is the human driver irrelevant to the subject of auto mechanics? — Jake

I kind of understand your argument, but there is a real danger, described in Karl Popper's 1947 treatise 'Enemies of an Open Society' - he describes as "making our representations conform" to science as truth. In other words, the danger that science will become dictatorial of the human condition. No-one wants that. The approach I devised specifically accounts for this potential threat - such that we can claim the functionality of science, to afford the delightfully irrational human condition.

OK. There is to be no discussion. So why're you wasting time posting here? You should be out there in the world, implementing your plans. The world is in a parlous state. You'd better get to it! Good luck. — Pattern-chaser

I disagree. I think this is the perfect place to present my ideas - that is, from the lowest possible platform.

Would this include a detached, objective, impartial, evidence based observation of the human condition, built upon the thousands of years of history we have available to examine? Are human beings part of the reality which we should seek to develop a coherent understanding of? — Jake

No. Absolutely not. Freedom baby! There's a principle that both limits the legitimate implications of science as truth - and lends science the authority to overrule ideology, and that is existential necessity! i.e. if we don't we'll die!

Nothing. This is a discussion forum. I'm not out to convert anyone to a radical course. This topic asks how to save the world, and I (and others) have offered alternatives that you seem unwilling to consider. So tell me, what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? Nothing, I imagine...? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No, it doesn't 'ask how to save the world.' It presents a plan. A plan you haven't read.

Then why are you 'telling, not asking', as you say? :chin: You are not open to comments that don't support your preferred course. You are not open to anything that doesn't support your preferred course. Is this not your One Truth, alternatives to which you will not discuss or consider? That's how it looks. — Pattern-chaser

You know very well you are taking that line out of context. You suggested I was asking you and other people generally How to Save the World. Well no, I'm telling you how. I started this thread to discuss my plan. I'm quite happy to discuss other people's ideas on the subject, but it can only be in relation to the ideas I've presented. Don't try making the superiority of my long thought out ideas - a problem because its better than your off the cuff thoughtlets!

Or killing everyone!
— karl stone

I note just one last time: no-one has suggested killing. Except you. The human race could be got rid of, if that is our aim, by simply preventing us breeding. There is no need/call for piles of bodies. Straw man. — Pattern-chaser

Really? A strawman? Okay Pattern, tell me - what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? All those who have signed up to the view that people are the problem - aren't going to migrate toward a policy of involuntary extermination? After what they've sacrificed - they won't drop the "V" from VHEM?

I've always found One Truthers scary. :scream: Discussion is pointless. :fear: Shame. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I've always found emojis childish - particularly in a forum such as this. That aside, I'm not a "one truther." I am however arguing that science constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we need government and industry to be responsible to, or we're all going to die.

Otherwise, I don't care what people in general believe in. I have no desire to go around disabusing little old ladies of their belief in God. But we're philosophers - and government and industry similarly, have profound responsibilities that transcend those of the man on the Clapham omnibus.