It's a useful convention, allowing us to apply logic, make inferences, abstract and generalize etc etc... enabling us to built up knowledge.

It's important to keep in mind that the law of identity, and logic in general, is not about the world, but about language only.

We arbitrarily split classes of particular things off from the whole/the flux of existence by giving them labels, and decide that classes of things that are given the same labels are equal to themselves.... even though 'in reality' only particulars are equal to themselves, and only at the exact same time.

The fact that x is not exactly equal to x generally, doesn't matter all that much, because it still works for our intents and purposes. And we need this basic 'falsification', because without it we wouldn't be able to abstract from particulars to something more general... any kind of knowledge would be impossible.

And those changes we cannot say are from a tradition. — ssu

I think they are ssu. This will no doubt be a contentious point, but I'd say the whole recent 'woke' flare is a direct continuation of the Christian tradition with its focus on suffering, victim-hood, the individual etc... Of course those taken in by these morals will claim to have some a-historical objective source for them, but that's par for the course... it's always more convincing to have morals spring from the fabric of reality itself than to acknowledge that they are something we create as we go.

You didn't really address the point I was making. We can use our judgement when deciding on how to act, we can be more aware or sensitive to moral issues, etc... this is all fine. I'm saying, when making these judgement, the values and ideas you use come from somewhere. It's not God, it's not pure reason and it's not intuition or some pristine awareness of right or wrong... it's traditions and culture in the broadest sense.

Why does this matter? Because if you let tradition or culture turn to shit, you will end up a lot of people using shit ideas when making these moral judgement. But it's all fine, let's just tell that gen Z kid who grew up on a diet of internet adds, instagram posts and Tiktok vids to cultivate and nurture some moral awareness on his own.

Ethics are more bound to autonomous moral agents, doing right in whatever given situation regardless of traditions; traditions are more bound to culture, following whatever has been done before regardless of doing what's right. — jorndoe

Yeah I think people, or maybe better western philosophy since Socrates, are confused about there being something right regardless of context. I don't think the idea makes much sense without God, which is why western philosophy has been struggling with moral foundations ever since.

You obviously have different ideas and opinions within traditions, but then you are not evaluating tradition to some outside fixed moral standard, but to just another strand within said tradition.

The idea of autonomous moral agents acting morally regardless of traditions is also a bit of a misguided idea I think. We don't pop into existence as blank adult moral agents, but are gradually educated in certain moral ideas given by our cultures and traditions. Moral intuitions are also formed by the traditions we grow up in, not some pristine moral judge we can rely on the find moral good and bad without context.

There is nothing outside. People seem to have trouble accepting that.

What I'm saying is that they aren't so interdependent as to say ethics = tradition. Ethics can change due to events, public and political debate about ethical issues and changes in the society. That doesn't mean that ethics are linked to traditions of the culture and society. — ssu

I'm not sure you're making a real distinction there, or what that distinction would be exactly? Isn't something that changes due to events, public and political debate, a kind of tradition, something that is socially constructed? Moral constructivism is not saying all tradition is ethics either, but that what is ethical or moral is determined by societal traditions... those traditions would be larger than merely ethics or morals strictu sensu, but do include them. So maybe we don't really disagree.

Ethics can obviously change, hence ethics ≠ traditions. — ssu

But traditions do change, which is why ethics change.

I'm a bit confused because usually the argument against moral constructivism is something like
1. slavery used to be accepted by certain ancient traditions
2. slavery is obviously wrong
3. therefor tradition cannot be the thing that determines ethics and morals.

The argument against tradition as morality is typically one in which morality is seen out of it's historical context (slavery is morally bad regardless, always, everywhere), and therefor contrary to what you seem to be saying, 'unchangeble' or absolute.

I don't see ethics changing as a problem for moral contructivism.... it's rather a problem for moral realists, absolutists, universalists etc.

Ethics ≠ traditions. — jorndoe

I guess this is where the divide in views springs from, for the moral constructivist, the traditions, the mores (customs) actually are the ethics and morals. In this view, if you dissolve these traditions for whatever reason, you have nothing left, or rather they get constructed in other unconscious and perhaps unfortunate ways, like say by corporate advertising. This is not to say that you can't critique traditions if you hold a constructivist view, but that the critique will necessarily be formulated from within the constructed system, immanent, and not by holding it up to some absolute moral standard that exist outside of time or context, transcendent (because that simply is nonsense in that view).

Conclusion: If we do not have public figures who would sacrifice themselves in order to defend our land, politics (both left and right) are not long relatable. Political figures were representatives of our traditions back then. But now they are kidnapped by money and sinful practices. They do not have honour nor ethics. It looks like they do not even assume responsibilities. They [politicians] do not care about us and our identity problem.
They are so coward that they would not be brave enough to sacrifice themselves to save the country. — javi2541997

I think even this is merely a symptom and not the 'cause'. An individual is also mostly a product of the society they grow up in, more than the other way around at the very least. Or put in other words you tend to get these kinds of politicians because there is already something rotten in society.

What is missing after dissolution of traditional structures in the past centuries is an idea of 'societal good', or even 'ecological good' that transcends individuals. This idea of a hierarchy of values should be evident, we simply cannot survive as individuals, or at least not flourish, if society collapses or if the biosphere dies for instance... we depend on the functioning of larger structures.

A society needs to venerate something, put something at the center of it's valuations, that is larger than a mere sum of individuals to function properly. The problem is not one of individual character, i.e. that these people are not brave enough to sacrifice themselves, the problem is that the idea that one should sacrifice something for the greater good has become laughable in current societies.

I want to say confidence in fiat isn't entirely made out of whole cloth. People come to these conclusion because the times, the socio-economical climate is pointing in that direction. In other more stable times one wouldn't deem it worthy of consideration.

Yes inflation is I guess always to some extend about confidence, that is what ultimately keeps increasing the velocity of the inflation-ball. But the ball has to start rolling somewhere. Gas-prices in Europe are 5x to 10x of what they where last year and summer is only beginning. These increases are not a confidence issue, but competition on the energy-market driving up the prices. There is the Ukraine war too yes, but prices were already peaking before the war. This is a long-term structural problem, because climate change, because increasing scarcity of resources, because a badly managed energy-transition, because rising geo-political tensions etc... I don't think it's going away any time soon.

Mostly what I see is record profits. For those without record profits, the usual happens: they enrich themselves to the bitter end, then file for bankruptcy while giving themselves huge bonuses. — Xtrix

Yes tacitly, and even not so tacitly, this is what is generally understood as the maxim of our societies, get ahead by whatever means, whatever the cost... just don't do it overly explicit.

But you are right, it is a belief and could be otherwise. What that otherwise entails though is another question, and one to which one might not altogether like the answer.

You say part of the problem is that the populace has "subscribed to the bullshit ideas of corporate America". But that isn't exactly how it works, one does not choose to subscribe to one of a wide range of possible and available options, more apt would be to say they have been conditioned in the corporate consumerist bullshit. Corporate advertising has largely replaced or subsumed societal myth/religion/traditions/mores, whatever you want to call it. and part of what made that possible are historical movements to dissolve those societal structures.

Anyway I could go on, but my point I guess is that the problem runs a bit deeper than expecting corporations to unilaterally and suddenly change their goals to something other than profit-seeking. They are also imbedded in systems that give them certain incentives and constrain them.

Sure, but when profits are so high it's worth asking whether or not these corporations can absorb the cost. Turns out they could -- I see no reason why they can't, or no good reason. Rather, they raise prices -- which is passing the extra cost onto others. Why should this be ignored? It's glaringly obvious this is just rampant greed. — Xtrix

Right, you're asking for systemic change then, because companies are no social organisations but specifically set up to make profit. In the current set-up one would expect corporations to try and keep their profit margin, right? I mean, I certainly would be surprised if corporations all of a sudden would collectively and voluntarily decide to absorb the cost themselves.

And I will say, I doubt all corporations could absorb the increase in cost all by themselves. Some, the bigger ones probably could, other ones I'm not so sure.

It's decreasing though. — Benkei

You're talking about consumer electronics specifically here?

Second area, we've seen shortages in components and raw materials due to covid disruptions since 2020 causing inflationary pressures during the pandemic. You would expect, especially if people would be spending more coming out of covid, that production capacity would increase. Instead we've seen three quarters of reduced shipping in consumer electronics. Why? — Benkei

Apparently there is already a drop in demand this year, after the "post-covid" surge last year, coupled with lock-down issues in China, and inflation, etc... all apparently contributing to a scaling down in shipping.

https://www.market-prospects.com/articles/weak-demand-for-consumer-electronics-and-ease-the-shortages-of-supply-chain

But point well taking, this was probably not a good example for the more general point I was trying to argue there.

That's why you have the price mechanism. If something becomes unobtainable, it's price goes extremely high. That creates incentives to replace the "something" with another thing. Hence high oil prices are the best thing that can happen to alternative energy resources. — ssu

Yeah substitutability, that works only up to some extend. Batteries without lithium are inferior,maybe we will eventually find something that could replace lithium, maybe not, there are not an infinite amount of elements in the periodic table. Or fertilizer for example is made with natural gas, we don't know of any good other way I don't think. In the abstract it sounds good, but there are practical 'physical' problem to the idea.

Hence high oil prices are the best thing that can happen to alternative energy resources — SSU

Only if oil and its derivatives aren't used to produce and distribute said alternative energy sources, which is, as it stands, a big if.

Either way, and I've said this before, coal, oil and natural gas are by far the most energy dense sources of energy we have access to. They are the reason we have had an industrial revolution to begin with. I highly doubt the idea of substitutability applies to fossil fuels, because they are what the entire economic system as we know is build on, and not only for the energy they provide. But the amount of energy you can use directly translates to amount of work that can be done, which in turn directly ties into the productivity-equation. If you need to invest more to get access to other energy sources, i.e. energy will be more expensive, this will have consequences for the rest of the economy.

And btw to everybody, has anybody seen anything anymore from the MMT crowd? :snicker: — ssu

Yeah I also would like to see someone try an explanation post-inflation :-). I dunno, I though it had some promise because we didn't have inflation for the longest time no matter what we did it seems, but what we have now seems a knock against it to say the least.

Energy crisis, making basically everything more expensive globally as it is at the base of the entire economy.

Also certain material shortages left and right.

And accumulated debt in the system trying to correct itself.

Those are underlying long term structural causes I'd say, then you also have short term factor like covid, Ukraine war, geo-political tensions and protectionism etc...

Demand takes off after covid, but it turn out supply of energy and materials is rather inelastic ... Increasing energy supply for example typically involves building large infrastructure taking years to build. So prices can only go up if we want to resume growth after covid, which implies increased demand.

Since energy and materials supplies and debt are a structural problem going forward, I'd expect some kind of long-term economic consequences, but wouldn't want to guess exactly what and when.

Only reason I can think of is that supplier sentiment is the market is overheated and we're bound to have a recession, (see for instance onetrust laying of 10% after a record q4 in 2021, Tesla layoffs etc.). — Benkei

What if supply just isn't as easy to increase as one thinks? You see this all the time in economics, that increase in supply is just a matter of demand incentive and volition. But in case of energy and materials there are physical processes to mine or harvest them. The idea that supply would follow demand only follows up to the point there aren't any physical limits we run into to increase supply.

There's no default position how the world ought to be, right, but there's a way the world is right now. And the way the world is, informs what the world can be, and therefor what the world should be. What should be is constraint by what is. Of course people disagree, but that doesn't mean that some visions just aren't very plausible from where we are now.

I like nature guy, I'm nature guy to some extent, but we can't return to some previous more innocent state of being without facing the consequences that entails. Back-to-nature should own up to the consequences, and in a world of 7, 8 billion people those aren't pretty I'd say.

The limits to growth fanaticism doesn't come from marxism I'd say, but more from some religious inspired eco-romantic back to nature notion couple maybe with some neo-Malthusianism, i.e the garden of Eden, i.e. the tower of Babel, i.e. Akira... there's tons of old and modern myths about it. It's the idea that reliance on knowledge and technology will do us in ultimately (human hubris) and that we need to return to some previous more pure natural state to save us all.

Also Marx was all for industrialization, It was the reason the bourgeois historically could have taken over from nobility, which ultimately paved the way for the proletariat to take over. It's a question of distribution and who controls the means of production for Marxists, wealth and prosperity an sich are fine. Not so for back to nature-guy.

It does look a bit suspect, certainly given the history fossil fuels industries have with lobbying. So sure, one can create a credible narrative that explains it in that way.

But here's another perspective. Scientists do have an interest in making their particular field attractive for investments. Most research projects rely on government funding to keep on existing and the succes of a researchers more or less gets measured in how much funding they can secure for their projects.... So that's another narrative one could create around the data we have.

What sways me however is that it isn't being used on a large scale anywhere in the world right now, eventhough energy security is such an important issue. It's not only about the US and NASA. I'm not an American, and I know that they are researching deep geothermal in my country, but it's always only at very specific locations to see if it's even viable there. Never is it seen merely as a question of implementing a technology that we know will work anywhere. You'd think that if it was such a no-brainer, they would've come to that conclusion, a good 40 years after NASA already did.

I did consider that possibility, and I kinda figured you would bring that up as a possible answer to that question, which is why I added "not exhaustive" afterwards... I won't deny that political and industrial interests probably play a role in choosing what energy sources to go with, I just don't think in this particular instance that would be the most important reason why it wasn't adopted. Sure, vested interests will push for more financing in their particular sector, but lobbying only gets you so far. If it was such a clearly abundant and cost-efficient energy-source, politicians wouldn't be able to steer political decision processes in other directions... not in an issue with so much public attention. The simpler explanation in my mind is that there are in fact some technical, technological or practical issues that hamper implementation everywhere on a large enough scale.

'Thought' seems a bit strong. I get that sensory stimuli created some sort of reaction in your brain - but that's not necessarily thought. Thought, I would suggest, is a process of challenging those autonomic mental reactions - and I see no evidence of that here. What I see is the stubborn post-rationalisation of an automonic reaction. Thought would have altrered your position by now. Were you actually thinking you would be forced to accept that the energy is there, and that the fossil fuel industry has extensive knowledge about drilling holes deep into the earth, 40 years in advance of anything NASA had available. You would be forced to accept that "experimentally proven by NASA" - while a blatant appeal to authority, is a credible basis upon which to claim it's a viable technology. Instead, what I see is a dismissive use of the term 'theorectical' - as an opening slavo, and what that suggests is that you are arguing from an attitude - reacting; not thinking, for thinking is to be aware, and sceptical of one's attitude. — karl stone

I think (here not used to indicate an instance of thinking, but to voice some amount of uncertainty or subjectivity in what I'm about to say) that what I did was in fact thinking in this case.

That tentative conclusion that you might be talking about a 'merely' theoretical study, came as an answer to the question in my mind: 'why isn't magma-geothermal being used everywhere by now, if it was shown to be that good by NASA?'.

My priors going in were something like (not exhaustive)
1) NASA does seem like a trustworthy organisation,
2) I don't think Karl Stone is straight up lying,
3) Magma-geothermal isn't being used on a large scale anywhere
4) There are a lot of studies being made (in case of renewables for instance) that don't take into account full costs and availability of human and material resources when talking about replacing fossil fuels, i.e. they are theoretical in that they don't take into account real world constraints

Running that question through my mind, I thus came up with an explanation that violated my priors the least/fit into my view of the world the best. I did look at some of those priors, but didn't find anything that would make me want to reconsider them. And then you shared the link to the study, which only confirms my tentative conclusion that is was only theoretical. As a kind of Bayesian, that is what I think thinking is.

"Theoretical" is in no way meant to be dismissive by the way, just that it doesn't look at real world implementation yet. It is part of the process, and a vital step in coming up with new technologies... you have to start somewhere.

Anyway I stand by my original position, that we can't sensibility talk about the viability of this in relation to other energy-sources, if we don't have data about the costs and other practical stuff. Maybe it could work at scale, I just don't know.

May I direct you to NASA's final report on the magma energy project. I'm sure that will answer many of your questions. It's too much here. No magical thinking though. NASA don't go in for that sort of thing.

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6588943 — karl stone

It is, like I thought, 'theoretical' though, in that its aim was to only research scientific feasibility. There's still a big gap between showing something to work in a research project and unlocking the technology on a large scale in an existing energy market. Costs for instance typically are no factor in a science project, because the are subsidized and economic feasibility is not the aim of the research.

Resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given limitless clean energy to spend there is no bottleneck in humankind's foreseeable future. We are not running out of anything; except perhaps helium - which I think can be manufactured given enough energy. — karl stone

This is not entirely right. Raw resources like all kinds of metals, are not created, save in rather rare events like supernovae or the big bangs. We have to do with what has been given us on earth for the most part.

Energy is a factor in the sense that you need energy for mining, and thus more energy lets you mine more. But this isn't free by no means. It"s typically a highly ecologically damaging activity, and not only because of burning fossil fuels, but mainly because of destroyed ecosystems.

The density of needed resources is diminishing over the years. We used to find copper in big lumps scattered across the land, now it's typically only a small percentage of the mined rock. This has been fine because mining technology coupled with dirt cheap fossil fuels let us grind through tons of material at relative little financial cost... but at the cost of larger and larger areas being mined.

So 'limitless energy' only get's you so far, if we assume we have limitless energy to begin with, which i would doubt. To begin with there's no such thing as limitless energy in physics, and even though theoretically the heat of the earth would be limitless for our intents and purposes, I highly doubt that we can turn that into limitless usable energy. The same thing can be said about solar energy, theoretically more energy than we could ever use, shines on the earth every day, for a couple of billion years still. But in practice it turns out photovoltaic cells can only turn a small percentage of that into electricity, we need to much of certain materials to build the panels and the batteries to scale them up, they wear off over time, you end up with a lot waste etc etc...

Nothing is free, to make energy usable for us you need to build all kinds of facilities and machinery, which makes that you run into all kinds of practical limits if you want to scale it up. For magma-geothermal we, I guess, don't know what the real costs are because it hasn't been deployed on a large enough scale. And that is by itself already a big issue because we need to decarbonise right now ideally. We have little time to put our hope in future technologies.

Looked at in this way, it follows that limits to growth is the consequence of a misapplication of technology. No-one need have a carbon footprint. I'm not claiming magma energy would solve everything right away, but abundant clean energy gives subsequent generations the best shot at a decent future. And limitless clean energy changes the calulus of economic rationality; allowing for recycling for example, or desalination and irrigation. The increase in downstream value will sustain civilisation. — karl stone

Carbon is hardly the only thing that matters. There are definitely limits, it's just not clear where they exactly lie. Waste heat of continued increase in energy use alone would fry the earth eventually.... But anyway, I do agree with the sentiment that we should give future generations a decent shot by finding the best way to generate energy.

The sheer scale of the energy available changes the equation in a most unexpected way; and that's what I'm trying to communicate. I assumed for a long time that sustainability required sacrifice, and couldn't see past that - but because of magma energy, I don't believe that's true, nor is it the right approach. The best and right approach to climate change is to have massively more clean energy to spend; not slightly less similarly polluting energy. That way leads to madness! — karl stone

I will say, even if we assume energy to be nigh unlimited and free of carbon, that doesn't mean we have reached sustainability. Energy and climate change is what is focused on most of the time, but that's only one of the major issues we are dealing with at the moment. There are also other, material and bio-physical limits we run into now, and if not now, eventually.... More energy let's us kick the can a bit further ahead of us, but at some point we will have deal with it. I tend to agree that we need more energy right now, because the alternative isn't very appealing (to understate how dire things could get), but I wouldn't presume we solved everything with that.

No that's right, I don't expect an answer right here, but those are the type of questions one needs an answer to to be able to settle the debate.... If not, then one does seem to engage in something akin to magical thinking as per title of the thread.

I know there's a lot of heat under the earths crust, just not how easy it is to be turned into usable energy. NASA's estimates are theoretical I presume? How practical is it to tap into it, what is the technology and engineering needed to do this? And especially, how much does it cost? There's always a cost to extract the energy, if possible at all. That's what is needed in this debated, you can't just say magma energy solves all the problems and expect everybody to take your word on it.

That's a truism, I suppose. I'm not sure it's a matter of having endless potential solutions waiting to go, and only the time and resources to develop one, but okay, sure - tell me, why would a nasa approved technology with the potential to provide near limitless clean energy, not be a priority? — karl stone

Every country has to come up with a plan to scale down use of fossil fuels and retain energy security at the same time. There's were the agency is at for the energy-transition (and that will probably not change any time soon), and also the bottlenecks for political will, budget and resources.... To make that plan they need to figure out their equation about cost, security and pollution of different energy-sources.

From what I gathered geothermal seems to make a lot of sense if you're close to continental plate fault lines. For other locations you need to drill a lot deeper, figure out how you get hot water out without causing seismic activity etc... I assume there's a reason it's still in a development-fase in a lot of countries where hot water doesn't literally gush out of the ground like in Iceland.

So the reasons for some countries not making it a priority would be costs of building the plants, research cost and time, and security issues etc... It might make more sense to build nuclear plants for instance. But look I'm no specialist and one does have to look at the numbers, case by case probably.

What if there's not enough time? Would you regret the wasted effort? — karl stone

Well yes, assuming financial, human and material resources are finite... we do have to make choices between what kind of things we will prioritize.

If it turns out geothermal doesn't get there in time, and the earth overheats, and societies collapse because climate change stresses get to much, then investments into geothermal, and mitigation in general, maybe could be better spend (at least for some part) on adapting to climate change instead.

If the whole thing goes south we presumably would have little use for high-technology energy sources.

The question is how does this scale up fast enough to replace fossil fuels before climate spirals out of control?

Geothermal is good for what, not even 0.5% of world energy generation at this moment? Do we even have enough engineering and building capacity to build what we need in any reasonable timeframe?

Pointing to a theoretical possibility means nothing if it isn't practically feasible. The practical details are exactly what matter here. We do need to do the math in this debate, otherwise it is magical thinking.

Similar exercises have been done with solar, wind and nuclear, and ridicules amounts of facilities need to build to be carbon free by 2050, and those are technologies that don't need any R&D anymore, and we could implement everywhere right away.

Bitter Crank, and authors like Vaclav Smil, are absolutely right to be sceptical about these kinds of proposals, if one looks at the numbers.

2. I think you have missed the point. — Wittgenstein

Maybe, then again maybe you are also missing a point if you think you can neatly untangle instrumental and intrinsic valuation in Nietzsche. As the philosopher with a hammer he saw his task as sounding out ideals/values (yes it was a sounding hammer, not a sledge hammer) to see whether they where ultimately hollow, or whether there indeed was something to them.

Part of sounding out a value like equality is looking at it from multiple perspective, which typically would include also looking at what said value ultimately entails practically in a society, or in a person. Sure he didn't like equality, but I don't think you can't separate out his 'pure' distaste of the value equality from its material, practical and economic consequences. I think all of that is locked into his perspectival evaluation of it.

If we should want to have a charitable look at the argument, maybe we should let the man speak for himself, since he did happen to make this exact argument in the greek state which boils down to this:

1. Life, suffering etc, can ultimately only be justified through art.
2. Slavery is necessary to enable a few to focus on creating said art.

"In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle, to a greater degree
than their own wants necessitate. At their cost, through the surplus of their labor, that
privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to
satisfy a new world of want."

Since 1) is essentially a value-judgement one maybe could just say that one doesn't care about art or high culture, and the rest of the argument looses its potency.

2) is more of a statement of fact that one could maybe discredit (or credit) on empirical grounds. Essentially he saying that 1) you need specialisation to be able to create good art 2) which requires that some are relieved from the daily struggle for existence 3) which in turn requires that a part of the population produces more/is forced to produce more than it needs for itself.

Maybe this could be true in ancient times, like Greece, but certainly this isn't true anymore in fossil-fueled post-industrialised societies. Because of the amount of energy per capita we have access to, we essentially have all the energy slaves we want, Energy can be translated directly into work, which basically could free up almost everybody to produce art if we wanted to.

A caveat to this story maybe is that going forward, huge amounts of energy is not necessarily garanteed since we kind of have to de-carbonize rather quickly and all (most, sorry nuclear) energy-dense sources of energy are carbon-based.

It is not that I am opposed to his philosophy and the idea of the 'overman' but I am thinking that it is a rather elastic idea, open to being stretched in many directions. — Jack Cummins

Yes I'd think he did that on purpose. Being a prelude to philosophers of the future and a beginning of re-evaluation et al., it has to be a bit non-specific if he wants it to be of use.

The overman is an ideal, a value, something to strive for... his tentative attempt at re-evaluation of values.

He thought western culture and philosophy was focused to much on static a-historical identities, on fixed being.

'Über' is 'over'. The over-man stands for a man that overcomes (his being). Being is becoming is the formula for this re-evaluation.

Capitalism may not be perfect but it is the only way to run a free society. — Dermot Griffin

Why do you think that? Sure, maybe you could say there were some failed non-capitalist experiments, but 'only way' seems a bit definitive.

Also, is freedom then the only, or the highest value, to which a societal organisation should be evaluated?

I dunno, maybe we are on a somewhat different wavelength, I wasn't really referring to any kind of monasticism at all. The point or problem, as I see it, is precisely not found in any kind of individual solution or orientation, but rather a lack of direction that is shared or communal if you will. This doesn't even have to be transcendental, religious or even political, just that people apparently have a need to feel part of some greater whole, on whatever scale that may be.

Capitalism and liberalism seem to have pushed individuation to the extreme so that there doesn't seem to be anything shared left at all. I think we are social cultural beings, are evolved to function that way, and are incomplete without some social, cultural sphere wherein we are raised and can thrive.

Maybe its the other way around? Maybe continual erosion of all that was communal/shared in favour of the individual has left a void, to which all of these movement sought some kind of solution?

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly. — Xtrix

It is the issue of our time, but what should be done about it is not that clear. 'Act accordingly' sounds a bit like the solution automatically follows from the problem.

Without trying to be exhaustive about it, part of the problem is that energy is life, and fossil fuels are the most dense, convenient energy-source we have, and also the basis on which our entire globalised system is built.

Anyway, i'm not suggesting that we shouldn't do anything about it, just that exactly what is the real question here.

We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction. — universeness

What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward?

There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?

What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?

I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism?

No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.

I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.

I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists. — universeness

I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems...

But I suppose there are different blends of socialism. I wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything, my bad.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialist don't seem to get.
— ChatteringMonkey

Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only. — EugeneW

Sure I could live with a little fucking up, I'm no fanatic.

Large particle accelerators are fine, as are nuclear powerplants ;-).

Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists. — universeness

The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialists don't seem to get.

But since you were already listening to that song in the 70's and 80's, I probably won't change your mind at this point ;-).

Thank you too.

Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer. — universeness

Nice rant, seriously I can appreciate some real passion shining through. It made me think of this songs :



[...]
In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years
Man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
[...]

Ultimately I'm probably more of an ecologist than a socialist. The laws of physics, ecology and biology take precedence over what we want, over what we can agree to.

I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.

Take care.