Sorry old chap. I don’t like to result to insult but you are being a bit of an ass. Could you please cut out the assness. Just a little. — Dan84

I did try. I asked him to let it go, but he persisted. So I tried asking nicely - but I'm meeting with that infuriating denial of genuine human emotion Buddhists affect - as a pretense of spirituality.

Also, the term 'enlightenment' from the 'age of enlightenment' is borrowed from the spiritual teachings found in the ancient scriptures. Back then, they thought that a scientific revolution would bring about that beatific society often alluded to in scriptures. Compared to now, obviously they were wrong, or it is yet to happen. — BrianW

Your point is trivial - because until the the Enlightenment, religious systems of thought, and the language used to describe them were all that were available. Using the term enlightenment to describe the light of rational knowledge was a step forward. Science surrounds us with miracles that we can see and experience in the real world, and if science has not reached its full potential, it's because the Enlightenment project was resisted by people like you. Appropriating the term to describe your eastern mysticism is a step back into the shadows of religious ignorance. But if you're okay with it - be aware, there are innumerable gerera of intestinal parasite yet to be classified, so prepare yourself for the karma tapeworm Giardiasis Gita!

Not quite so.

Enlightenment, from the Bhagavad Gita, refers to a state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality. I have utmost confidence that every part of its teachings are consistent with rationale, scientific or otherwise. Also, every principle or law stated in the teachings are observable in their action through phenomena thus making empiricism evident. — BrianW

The actual Enlightenment refers to something real, that actually occurred, and is rationally comprehensible - a political movement in European history that rejected absolutist religious authority in favor of science and rationality.

A "state of unity, harmony and freedom as a conscious being within an absolute reality" is at best, a subjective psychological state - and at worst, a string of words that signify nothing. Either way, it's not consistent with empiricism - which requires proof of reliably reproducible phenomena.

Given that the Bhagavad Gita has names for this supposed psychological state - please use those. This is beyond cultural appropriation. It's cultural vandalism to claim Enlightenment can be achieved by sitting cross legged in one's pajamas, eyes closed and believing really, really hard! The Enlightenment is the very antithesis of that kind of nonsense.

The problem with this hypothesis to my mind, is that human beings are not probable. We are wildly improbable.
— karl stone
Up to a point demography is very accurate: that is when you make estimates going two three decades from now. This is obvious as the population that makes babies is already around.

The false "inescapability" of the Malthusian predictions is a case study of the dangers of simple logic and simple mathematical models when modeling extremely complicated issues. Extrapolation goes only so far. — ssu

I entirely agree. Demographic prediction depends on assumptions, explicit assumptions at the probable end, about how many babies the average woman is likely to have - but then there are implied assumptions about the improbable, like an asteroid won't hit the earth and wipe out half the population.

I'm being slightly facetious to illustrate the point - but Malthus could not have foreseen the development of agricultural science and technologies that allowed us to transcend his gloomy logic trap.

Similarly, I think the doomsday hypothesis cannot predict our future - for our future is overwhelmingly likely to be shaped, for better or worse - by highly improbable factors!

What enlightenment did you have in mind? — BrianW

The Enlightenment in European history was a period in which absolutist religious authority and religious reasoning were cast off, and rationality and science were embraced. Clearly, this was never fully realized - but separation of church and state, and other secular values are attributable to the era. Thus, I took the question to mean - can we complete the enlightenment project by accepting that science truthfully describes reality, and conducting our political and economic affairs accordingly. It is, to my mind - necessary to secure a sustainable future.

Clearly, you use the term enlightenment to refer to something else entirely, something inconsistent with a scientific rationale that demands empirical proof of reliably reproducible phenomena. I cannot help but consider this conflation of terms an unfortunate and unnecessary appropriation of a well established term with a specific and important meaning.

The English speaking world managed to understand and incorporate words like karma - such that continuing to colonize over the idea of enlightenment seems somewhat calculating on your part; a deliberate attempt to undermine an alternate and opposed system of thought. And if you are successful - I rather suspect the entire human species likely to achieve the nirvana of non-existence!!

When Krishna expounds on yoga in the Bhagavad Gita, the teachings are based on the principles of absolute unity. Yoga means absolute unity in spiritual teachings. Absolute unity means unity with everything or with the whole of reality. The different types of yoga are different paths to attaining such unity. Karma Yoga are teachings on how to attain unity through appropriate activity whether political, scientific, rational, social, etc, etc. Because those teachings are based on principles, they apply to all the various channels of our life-interactions.

The enlightenment taught in the Bhagavad Gita is a comprehensive enlightenment, the only problem for most people is the spiritual language used. However, I think it is possible to translate it into political, scientific, rational, social, etc, fields of association. — BrianW

I was quite content to have misunderstood - and for the word enlightenment to have been used in an entirely different sense here, to that which I had in mind. Because I'm a scientist and a rationalist, if you discuss this further, I shall be forced to adopt a critical position relative to your philosophy - and I have no desire to do so. Let us shake metaphorical hands and retreat to our separate realms, and for the avoidance of confusion in future, perhaps you might use the word moksha, or Kevala Jnana, or ushta instead. i.e. "Can we ever reach moksha?"

Really? Then you are not using the term "enlightenment" as it is commonly (exclusively?) used to describe this Eastern religio-philosophical concept, are you? Enlightenment has little or nothing to do with politics, science, rationality, or even reality (in the scientific sense), as I understand it. — Pattern-chaser

Then I'm sorry to have disturbed your obvious calm!

Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans — karl stone

That's not actually what he's expressing, imho. By arguing for a plant based diet, he's also arguing on behalf of human interests. What he's struggling with is that he sees our human interest clearly, but can't find an effective method of communicating that interest to those such as yourself who are determined to never get it no matter what. — Jake

The anti-progress misanthrope sides with the misanthropic herbivore, in agreement that:

Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet — chatterbears

So what are the others - as bad or worse? And by what criteria do make such a judgement?

I both agree and do not agree with Rosenberg's view on morality and evolution. I feel like it is possible for our core morality to stem from natural selection and adaptive drives. However, if that were really the case, why isn't the dog-eat-dog morality one of our morals? — Play-doh

Because you fundamentally misunderstand evolution - when you reduce it to the adage 'survival of the fittest.' Humans evolved in a tribal context - and the tribe best able to survive was one in which its individual members had a moral sense that compelled them to share food, fight together against threats, look after the young and so forth. Fittest in that sense, was anything but dog eat dog. Something Nietzsche got wrong to catastrophic effect.

I have encountered this hypothesis before. I think it was v-sauce on youtube - well worth checking out if you haven't already. The problem with this hypothesis to my mind, is that human beings are not probable. We are wildly improbable. Around 1800 Thomas Malthus predicted that humankind faced starvation because, while human population grows exponentially - 2, 4, 8, 16, 32 etc, agricultural land must necessarily grow arithmetically 1 acre, plus 1 acre, plus 1 acre. The logic seemed inescapable - yet here we are, 7 billion strong and better fed than ever. We are inherently improbable creatures - and existing for the long term is well within our reach.

I think the subject is implied by - but not present in the sentence, and is the self. The sentence is another way of saying 'I experience raining.' The subject is the self - experiencing rain, implied by 'it' - which is the objective reality, relative to the subjective self.

When I read "enlightenment" - I didn't think yoga. I thought political system based on science and rationality. Evidence of the benefits of science and rationality surround us; this computer for example - is to my mind, miraculous. The knowledge that allows for this computer to exist is a small aspect of the truth of reality - and to my mind, enlightenment would be to accept that science describes reality, and act accordingly. The consequence would not be some immaterial sense of enlightenment - but a better world, forged in pursuit of responsibility to truth. Further though, I think there are real psychological and spiritual benefits - that not only would the outer world function better, but the inner world would too.

In other words, humans are selfish assholes, lol. But I agree. Humans, I'd argue, are one of the worst species on the planet lol. All we do is ruin the lives of everything around us, including our own species. It's quite sad actually. — chatterbears

It seems to me your vegetarianism is self congratulatory, rather than ethical. You have no firm grasp on what ethics are, you haven't argued in those terms, and have been reduced to repeating a mantra about "the needless torture and murder of animals" - and calling the human species selfish assholes.

Clearly, you imagine your preference for animals over humans on such solid ground you have no need to grapple with the idea of ethics as a moral system, in relation to the facts of the real world; in which, despite the meteoric - if somewhat chaotic progress of civilization, billions of people still go to bed hungry.

It wasn't that long ago - the only way of life was rural, and when the crops failed people starved - just as animals do in nature. We drag ourselves out of the dirt, misery and savagery of a state of nature - and some simpering, self congratulatory, pseudo-ethical bigot, would cast all humankind as selfish assholes in comparison to himself. Well now we know!

Plain and simple, animals would not be needlessly killed if society stopped buying animal products. — chatterbears

Can you honestly be saying at this stage of debate - that if people were vegetarians, animals would not be farmed? There's a difference between simple and simplistic. Constantly seeking to bias the argument by needlessly introducing terms like needlessly - demonstrates that your argument is a prejudiced opinion. Prejudice obscures the truth.

It's nominally true:

Once the consumer stops demanding that product, that product stops existing. — chatterbears

But is't also a fact that animals are not needlessly killed. They're killed for food, and the vast majority of people eat meat. They are not likely to stop doing so - and you have not established, morally speaking, that they should.

And you still haven't explained WHY it is ok to kill and eat a pig, but not a dog or human? Are you going to actually answer this question? — chatterbears

I'm not a farmer. I don't know anything about raising pigs. I don't have a dog either. I imagine there are reasons that pigs are farmed, and dogs are not. But it's not universal, is it? In China and Korea dogs are farmed and eaten. And there were cannibals in New Guinea that ate human flesh. Interestingly, I understand - eating human brains gave them the equivalent of mad cow disease.

What a fail on many different levels. To come into a philosophy forum and claim you don't have to be consistent in your ethics, followed by justifying an action by saying "I love a bacon sandwich and I don't care." - Do you actually even care to be consistent in your ethics? — chatterbears

It's entirely acceptable in my culture to eat bacon sandwiches. Just as it's acceptable to eat dogs in Korea, and human flesh in New Guinea. How can I be consistent when the world is so diverse? I can offer my perspective, as you have offered yours. I do not personally relish the idea of eating dog flesh or human flesh, but I reject your claim that my position is - it's okay to eat pig, but not dog or human. It's too simplistic - if you are seeking to establish that our dominion over animals is unethical.

Depends on the cost efficiency of that pill. — chatterbears

As I said, I love to cook, and I love to eat. It's one of the great pleasures in life - and I would not forgo that pleasure needlessly. There are not vegetable substitutes for meat based dishes, and just because it's possible to survive on vegetable matter alone, does not infer that vegetarianism is an equal substitute, anymore than taking a pill would be.

"I don't need to be consistent. It's your morals that are in question, not mine." - Then there is really no point to have a discussion, since you want it to be one-sided without any criticism or responsibility on your side. — chatterbears

The fact that the title of this thread, which you started, is posed in the form of a question - belies your real position. You ask a question and then insist on an answer - and nothing anyone has said, despite some very good arguments from myself and others, has shifted you one inch. It's that - that makes it your views that are in question, and not mine. You came here with an agenda - while pretending you were trying to decide a question, you had already decided.

How ironic it is to say, "that's not philosophy - is it?", coming from the person doesn't care to be consistent, and justifies their actions by saying "I don't care." - Is that your version of philosophy? Talk about an opinion... — chatterbears

I'm only saying "I don't care" in the context of paying taxes to government, to employ people who know all about farming - to do that caring for me. What purpose would my ignorant hand-wringing serve?

You say you don't like the idea of animal cruelty and unnecessary torture, but then continue to support industries that do it? Talk about cognitive dissonance. — chatterbears

Then someone is not doing their job, and that's who you should spend your time harassing. I don't know anything about farming. On a well run farm, I very much doubt there's "animal cruelty and unnecessary torture" - because what would be the point? That would be like a potter smashing his pots. But then, you're speaking in relation to an imaginary ideal - garden of eden type scenario, wherein the loin lays down with lamb. The sad fact is, those animals are going to die one way or another. Stunned and cut and bled - is probably preferable to attacked and torn open and eaten alive.

You can never answer any of my questions, can you. It may be pointless to continue this conversation (between us), because you don't care about actually answering questions and challenging your own moral inconsistencies. As I said before, it's laughably ironic to say to me, "That's not philosophy - is it?", but then say things like "Do I have to be consistent." - Followed by taking the question out of context by applying it to an extreme survival situation, instead of the situation I framed the question in. — chatterbears

I disagree. This has been most useful to me. I always assumed vegetarians were a bit flaky, but I had no idea. This was your question:

For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here. — chatterbears

I think I answered perfectly reasonably. I can't imagine any circumstances in which I'd want to exploit a mentally deranged or handicapped person. Is that a better answer than the one I can up with?

If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog! — karl stone

What you seem loathe to acknowledge - is that there is a natural pecking order; and thus, your attempts to conflate the moral worth of a human being with the moral worth of an animal are intuitively wrong. And so I have explained why it's okay to kill a pig or a dog, but not a human being - and if you had read my post before responding to it - you'd have known that. But then, you're not here to consider the question you asked. You already know the answer - so you start typing before you start reading, and you're not really thinking at all - you're merely reacting on the basis of your prejudices. If there's no point continuing this discussion - that's the reason.

The point is dead if you're not willing to understand it. If you cannot get past the idea that you, as the consumer, are partly responsible for how a good/product is produced, then I don't know what else to tell you. — chatterbears

I do understand. I do not agree. What I would tell you is that there are many ways of conceptualizing the world. In your conception the consumer is responsible. In mine, consumer sovereignty is an unsustainable cognitive burden, and responsibility lies with the producer. The question is - which is more useful.

And you still haven't explained why. Why is it ok to kill a dog or pig for unnecessary reasons, but not ok to kill a human for unnecessary reasons? — chatterbears

I see the trap here. Pigs are at least as intelligent as dogs, so I'm led to believe. I don't know if it's true - because my experience with either animal is extremely limited. I've never eaten dog meat - while I eat bacon regularly. Would I eat dog? Under the right circumstances - north pole expedition, holiday in Korea. But otherwise, no!

Plant-based products are a cruelty-free alternative to eating meat. You don't have to eat plant-based products that mimic meat. You can eat rice, grains, pasta, beans, nuts, vegetables, fruits, tofu, fortified soy milk, rice milk, etc... You can get all your daily nutrients without eating meat. There's alternatives, so why aren't you going to use them? — chatterbears

If you're attempting to establish hypocrisy in my position, it shouldn't be difficult. But then I'm not the one making claim to moral superiority. It's you that needs a consistent position. Ultimately I can simply say - I love a bacon sandwich, and I don't care. But I'm attempting to meet you on the ground laid out by your proposition - to test the idea that our dominion over animals is unethical.

Let me ask you a question. If scientists developed a pill you could take, and you'd have all the nutrition you need without having to eat at all - would you think that a good thing, and take it? I wouldn't. I love to cook, and I love to eat. I have a theory that vegetarians can't cook. They don't really like to eat. It is in their view, a chore. Where in my view, it's a pleasure - and to be utterly honest, the savagery and sacrifice adds to the experience.

Again, provide evidence that humans are being slaves in the same ways animals are. You make up hypothetical scenarios without any data to back it up, while I actually have data to show you what goes on in these farms. Also, even if it were the case that all plant-based products were produced by human labor, you eat those as well, do you not? So you support two types of exploitation (human and animal), while I only support one type (human). But I find it interesting that you won't answer questions, but instead just keep shifting the focus away from yourself and pointing the finger at me without any proper data. — chatterbears

It's a rhetorical point. I have no evidence. If the point were raised against me - I'd dismiss it on the grounds that human beings have free will. All I'm saying is that you're happy to depend on human labour, but were it an animal it would be condemned as exploitation. It's your morals that are in question, not mine. I accept that life is a web of inter-dependencies. The food chain is one of them. The plants you eat are part of that web, a web of life that involves animals eating other animals.

And you still haven't explained why murdering a human is wrong, but murdering an animal is not? Also, animals eat each other out of necessity for survival. We eat animals out of pleasure and convenience, not for survival. If you were in a survival situation, such as wild animals are, I would then be happy to deploy my consistency and not condemn you for eating an animal for survival. But you are not in that situation, so why are you trying to compare two things that are not equal? Also, no. I do not feed my dog meat. We order eggs from an ethical farm (which does not kill or strain the animals), in which I cook those eggs with lentils, carrots, peas, etc... — chatterbears

I did explain at the bottom of my previous post - the difference between animals and human beings. In a word, awareness. And above I explained that I don't accept plants are an alternative to meat. I don't eat primarily for survival. I eat to assuage hunger, and I eat for pleasure. Thankfully, survival is a very distant motive. I wonder, if offered meat - would your dog enjoy it? It doesn't have sharp teeth for cutting grass. Our teeth are those of an omnivorous creature. Dogs mostly eat meat, and historically, it's why humans and dogs became companions. If humans had only gathered, and never hunted - we'd be on the dogs menu!

Again, not going to go over this with you again. If you don't understand simple supply and demand, I don't know what to tell you. — chatterbears

Do you really imagine I don't understand your simplistic argument? I made it clear I understand it - when I explained the concept of consumer sovereignty. The problem is, you think you're right - and therefore, anyone who doesn't agree is stupid. Allow me to assure you from this vantage point - it's the other way around. It's you who doesn't understand - why consumer sovereignty is a fundamentally misconceived approach.

why do continue to buy animal products, when it is a widely known fact that animals are being exploited? And if you are going to appeal to species, then what's your justification. Why is it ok to exploit an animal, but not exploit a human? — chatterbears

Again, I explained this at the bottom of my previous post.

Similarly, I know for a fact that animals are being exploited, so I stopped buying animal products. This is called ethical consistency, which you don't seem to care about. — chatterbears

You're not taking anything I say on board, are you? Nothing. I understand where you're coming from, and criticize your position, but you don't understand and criticize mine. All you're doing is banging the same drum - it's cruel, it's cruel, it's murder, it's wrong, it's cruel. That's not philosophy - is it? It's the opinion of an opinionated person.

I do care about animal cruelty, but as I explained - it's not my responsibility. The responsibility to farm and kill animals in a manner that is as humane as possible is best located with the producer - for the reasons already stated. I don't know anything about farming, and I don't want to know - just as I don't know how clothes, or electricity, or Samsung phones are made. And for you to suggest it's my responsibility to know is false. I cannot do that. I can only pay my taxes, and employ government to act on my behalf in the manner it sees fit.

So because a dog does not have consciousness of itself and the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, we are then justified in exploiting that dog for our pleasure and convenience, correct? I can torture and kill that dog and use its skin for my boots and/or clothing, since his consciousness isn't as high as mine, right? — chatterbears

I can't say I like the idea. And it's not necessary to torture an animal to kill it and eat it, and use its skin for clothing. As I've said, I do care about animal cruelty, but believe that responsibility lies with the producer. I don't know how many times I have to say this before you will take up the point and question it - rather than simply ignoring it, and insisting it's cruel, it's murder, it's torture blah, blah, blah.

For you to stay consistent, would you then be ok with us exploiting a human who has the same consciousness as a dog or cow? Such as a mentally deranged or handicapped person, who has a lower level of consciousness compared to normal human beings. Since they do not have the same awareness of themselves and of the world, as well as not being able to think creatively, are we then justified in exploiting mentally retarded people? Let's see if you're willing to bite the bullet here. — chatterbears

Would I? Do I have to be consistent? Can I not extend sympathy to a person, who's personhood is damaged in some way? But let's examine the proposition. If it were a survival situation - say, there's limited oxygen, and besides yourself - you could only save one person. Would it be them? Are you telling me - that they would have an exactly equal chance of being saved? Or would the retarded person be the first out the airlock - if push came to shove? In extremis, given no other options, that's a bullet I'd bite - and if you're honest with yourself, so would you! But even the retard would outlive the dog!

So until the government put animal cruelty laws in place, you didn't know how to not be cruel to animals? You seem to be saying, you will go along with whatever the laws/government say and not think for yourself, correct? Because I don't need the government to tell me not to kick my dog, as I know that causes unnecessary harm. Same with eating animals. — chatterbears

I don't keep animals. I don't keep farm animals, and I don't keep animals as pets. The question of animal cruelty isn't an issue for me. The question of how to properly cook and garnish a steak however - is a question close to my heart. Even so, generally, I obey the law. If meat were illegal - I wouldn't eat it. It would be so expensive, I couldn't afford it, and be of such questionable quality - I wouldn't want it. But make no mistake - it would still be available, and produced without any regulation on animal cruelty. You might argue current regulations are insufficient, and that's an argument to take up with government. If you did, I might support you - but guilting the consumer is fundamentally the wrong approach.

Animals can be killed. And whether or not I kill an animal myself, or I pay somebody else to do it, I am still responsible. Whether that is by 1st hand or 2nd hand, doesn't matter. This originally started with you saying you are not responsible for how the animals are treated or killed, yet you pay for them to be mistreated and killed. Same with a hitman. If I pay a hitman to kill somebody, I am responsible for that person's death. Instead of acknowledging this point, you focus on the term "murder", which isn't relevant here. What is relevant is whether or not you are responsible for doing a crime yourself, or paying someone else to do the crime for you. — chatterbears

I see that you are responding paragraph by paragraph - rather than reading the whole post before responding. I built a case, and addressed this matter again later. I understood your argument the first time. The only point I wanted to make was that there's no moral equivalence between killing people and killing animals.

Three points here.

1. You'd have to provide evidence that the parts I bought to build my pc, were made by humans who were exploited. You would then have to provide me with an alternative that is cruelty-free (made by humans were NOT exploited). After you have done that, I would happily buy those parts instead, which makes me ethically consistent. If I refused to buy different parts, even after you have shown me evidence of human exploitation, then you could say I am committing an immoral action. And that is the position you are in. I have shown you an alternative (plant-based diet), that would eliminate the exploitation of animals (animal products you eat). But instead of accepting that alternative and changing your actions accordingly, you will continue to support animal exploitation, correct? — chatterbears

So are you saying that not eating meat is an alternative to eating meat? I completely disagree. And so it seems, do most vegetarians. You don't eat vegetables - so much as vegetables disguised as meat. Producers mimic meat stews, sausages, cutlets - they give them a pseudo-meat flavour, and try to create the same mouth feel. Furthermore, those products are made by human labour. Have you ever stood in one place, in the cold, packing crap in a box for nine hours straight? So you would torture humans to produce fake meat, and then break your arm patting yourself on the back - because you haven't been cruel to animals. So it can't be about "equality and compassion" - for while you maintain "animals are people too" - you don't act like "people are animals too."

2. Murder is a useless term in this context, as we are talking about unjust and unnecessary killing. Whether you want to call that murder, slaughter, or just killing, it doesn't matter. People can be killed unjustly. Animals can be killed unjustly. The term "murder" is irrelevant to the actual reality of sentient beings dying unnecessarily. — chatterbears

Again, not so. Murder is not killing. Putting a person to death for a crime is not murder. Assisted dying is not murder. Killing in self defense, or the defense of others, is not murder. In none of these cases would you hire a hitman. I don't know who peter is - but he was murdered, if not by you then by your hitman. You clearly meant to equate killing animals with the murder of a human being. But as we've shown above, your equality is hypocritical. The fact is animals eat eachother - so, to be consistently equal - if "humans are animals too" - you would need to condemn all animals that kill and eat other animals. Do you feed your dog meat?

3. Lastly, a one time purchase of computer parts (every 5-7 years) causes far less suffering than eating 3 meals per day (which all include animal products). This leads to billions of animals being slaughtered every year. How many humans were slaughtered for my computer parts? Not to mention, for how many people I have talked to using my computer, in which they have change their mind on many different topics, has a positive net benefit overall. I am not saying this justifies human exploitation, but there is no net positive benefit to consuming animal products, unlike buying a computer. I can criticize racists and display animal rights activism through my computer, but what can eating a hamburger do for you? — chatterbears

So some animal exploitation is okay. If I only eat meat occasionally - is it less morally wrong? Does that apply to other things? If a promise not to hire a hitman to kill anyone else, can I have peter killed? It was one in seven billion people, and just the one time - and he was really asking for it, like cows do by being so darn tasty! No! If it's murder, it's always murder.

It's a bit troubling how far you will go to rationalize your food consumption. Eating is not something you do once in a while that may or may not be linked to exploitation of sentient beings. Eating is something you do 3 times a day, which has massive impact on the world around you. And not just in regards to the immoral aspect of it, but what about the environmental damage it causes? — chatterbears

I'm having a discussion with someone who believes eating meat is wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with me justifying eating meat. It requires no justification. It's legal, it's available, and I like it. That's my justification, and I find it perfectly sufficient. If I go deeper it's for the purposes of debate. My reason for engaging in this debate is because I find your approach fundamentally misconceived and potentially fatal. Placing the burden of responsibility with the consumer - gives producers a free hand to produce in the cheapest, dirtiest was possible - and market their goods to people who just don't care.

I argue that the responsibility lies with government and producers - to produce in a scientifically justified, and sustainable manner. If that meant meat were illegal - then so be it.

If it was a known fact that Samsung uses child labor to make the Galaxy Note 9, and I went out and bought the Galaxy Note 9, am I not contributing to the child labor in which Samsung has initiated? Or should I be like you and say, "I don't work in the tech industry, nor am I a phone inspector working for the government." - This is an extremely harmful way of thinking. — chatterbears

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm not excluding people from making ethical choices. I'm saying that consumer sovereignty is a flawed approach. (p.s. unless you know for a fact that Samsung does use child labour - don't make things like this up. This is slander, or libel - and I wish to disassociate myself from your remarks.) That said, it again comes back to adequate regulation - because a) I can't know everything about how anything is produced, and b) I may not care. Government on the other hand, is meant to know and is meant to care. That's their job. It's not my job - and if you leave it to me, it won't get done!

Ok, so should I apply your thought process to people too? Should we go back to owning slaves, since equality is not what nature has in store for animals? Since, it is a fact we are animals as well. We are a slightly higher intelligent animal, but still an animal. And by your logic, we should not abide by the values of empathy, compassion or equality, correct? And if you think those values should only apply to humans, but not animals, what is your justification for doing so? — chatterbears

You do not seem to comprehend my thought processes. This is an implication from your argument. I make a distinction between human beings and animals, because human beings have a qualitatively distinct awareness of themselves in the world. In the anthropological literature, there was an event called the 'creative explosion' - that marks a sudden change in behviour, we know about because before - stone hand tools of a similar design going back about 1.5 million years, and afterward, improved tools, jewelry, cave art and burial of the dead.

To produce these things requires the psychological ability to construct forward facing strategies - to have an idea in mind, and to envisage the steps necessary to make that idea manifest. In short, the human being has a future and a past, a consciousness of itself and the world, and the ability to think creatively. It's that - that's deserving of moral consideration. But if we crashed on a mountain, and you were killed - I would have no compunction whatsoever about eating your flesh. Unless there was cow available, or even nut cutlets! I'm not keen on eating human flesh - but to survive, I would, and it wouldn't be small frozen chunks either. I'd fry you up with some onions!

So you would rather stay willfully ignorant, than to understand the truth and change accordingly? You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears

I perhaps didn't emphasize enough the division of labour I alluded to in my previous post. I am not a farmer. I don't know anything about farming. Other people do know about farming. They are specialists in the practice of keeping, raising and killing animals for food. Then there's government that regulates business. So what I'm saying is, that I would rather pay my taxes, have government decide scientifically on standards of animal husbandry - and apply laws on that basis that place the burden of responsibility on the producer - where it belongs.

- I kill peter myself.
- I hire a hitman to kill peter.

Are you trying to tell me that I am not responsible for the death of peter in the 2nd situation? — chatterbears

Are you saying that animals can be murdered? There's a case going through the British courts at present, in which for reasons too lengthy to relate - an employment tribunal judge is deciding whether "ethical veganism" is a philosophy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46421221/sacked-man-claims-discrimination-against-his-ethical-veganism

I say it's not, because it lacks the cogency required of a philosophy. It's an opinion, because - above you say:

Veganism is about equality and compassion. — chatterbears

But it's not an equality that applies both ways. I know just from the fact you are using a computer you didn't build you are happy to exploit human labour, but if it were an animal performing labour, you'd have an ethical objection - and premise that on equality and compassion, that leads to you to equate the killing of animals with the killing of people. Killing people is murder, and any part in a murder has an equivalent moral consequence. That's not so if it's not murder.

The concept you might have employed to better effect is consumer sovereignty - which you describe perfectly well here:

You are responsible for what happens to these animals, as you are the customer who demands the product they produce while being tortured and slaughtered. If we did not demand these products, the products would not exist. They only exist because we demand them, hence we are responsible for their existence. — chatterbears

Certainly, to some degree - my demand induces supply. However, the assumption that it's wrong is not safe. Because it's the very question we are examining, it cannot be a premise. i.e. you cannot say eating meat is wrong because eating meat is wrong. It's a tautology. You cannot cogently argue that eating meat is wrong on grounds of equality, unless you would also forgo all interdependence on human labour. Do you imagine farmers want to plow, and plant and harvest crops? It's hard work - I imagine. So you would torture a farmer, but not a cow? The equality argument doesn't hold either.

In that context, if you would argue consumer sovereignty - you merely confirm that eating meat is a choice, and it's a choice the consumer - as sovereign, is perfectly entitled to make.

To claim it is an unsustainable cognitive burden, is to completely lack any ability to take responsibility for your actions and improve as a thinking moral being. — chatterbears

I disagree, because of the division of labour. This is inherent to the human condition. We cannot know everything - but we can be very good at a few things. We are interdependent specialists, and by these means I discharge my moral duty, if any. It's not realistic to place upon me the burden of knowing about farming because I'm not a farmer, and nor am I a farm inspector working for the government. I employ them, at some remove - in the expectation that the manner of production and slaughter is as humane as possible, or - to decide on my behalf, if such products should be available at all. There are products that are not available - despite a demand for them. So to say my demand is responsible for their production is false.

You say:

You have time to think for an hour per day, researching what happens in the world we live in. This is how we become more aware and obtain knowledge of what goes on in our world. — chatterbears

In that case, it behooves you to acknowledge the reality of evolution. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Animals appear designed in relation to their environment, because each surviving species is a marble cut from a mountain, where those not best suited to survive are simply discarded. Suffering and death is the fate of animals in nature - and the toll is sky high. That's the reality - and for you imagine that equality and compassion should prevail is a comforting pretense. That's your opinion and prerogative - but it has little to do with the world we live in.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!
— karl stone

Can you give an example of this? And I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms. — chatterbears

Carrion is the flesh of dead animals. That's what we eat. We don't eat animals like lions eat animals - or the larva of a parasitic wasp eats animals, or sharks etc, etc.

In nature, the act of eating and killing are often much the same thing.

In agriculture, they are separate - such that, very few people do the killing, while the vast majority of people only do the eating.

For you to say to me: "I will assume you do not know what goes on within these factory farms."

What you're saying is that the killing is my responsibility - but in fact, I don't know what goes on in these factory farms, and I don't want to know.

Similarly, when I boil a kettle - it's not my fault that the electricity is not renewable energy. That responsibility lies elsewhere. What should I do? Not boil a kettle, not wash my clothes, not watch TV because for reasons beyond my control or understanding - it's not renewable energy when it could be?

Similarly, should I not eat meat because the animal might not have lived and died in the best conditions possible? How could I possibly know? The responsibility is not with the end user. It's with the producer - of electricity, of meat, and of every other thing.

You'll say - well, you don't have to eat meat. Maybe that's true - but I like meat. The animal could have lived well and died humanely; more humanely than in nature. If you would demand I know the provenance of everything I eat, ultimately you place an unsustainable cognitive burden upon me - that's simply not my responsibility. Or demand that I forego that which I cannot guarantee is consistent with the highest ethical standards.

And because I can't guarantee any such about anything, the logical conclusion of your argument is sitting around in hemp kaftans, singing cum-by-yar, while waiting on a pot of lentils to cook by the heat of a beeswax candle - and that's just not a way of life that appeals to me in the least.

We don't eat animals - we eat carrion. In nature, animals eat eachother alive. Agriculture is less cruel than nature!

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!