This phenomenon has been observed in the natural world-- when groups have become unsustainable, whether by toxicity, overcrowding, and unrest, they naturally break apart into smaller groups somewhere else. — L'éléphant

I am confused. What you said is true and doesn't that make our disregard for nature, the problem? But we are smart enough to develop the science that should become the right reason of which Cicero speaks.

"If you have faith in the natural ordering of state of affairs" My faith is in science, not human stupidy and the religions that maintain it.

All of this, yes! I'd give anything to have these societies back and people behaving like them. You need to see this history, man. Epicurus is the real deal. I regard him as THE single most important, and influential philosopher in history:

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Spinoza/Texts/Epicurean%20History.htm — Garrett Travers

Oh, yes you have my attention. :grin:

"The teachings of the Lyceum did not sit well with Epicurus, who quickly moved on to study the atomistic system of Democritus under Nausiphanes of Teos." That is from your link and I am enjoying it. While reading of Epicurus education I was uneasy because I knew Socrates was opposed to contemplating smaller and smaller things (atoms) and Plato who learned from Socrates went on to teach philosophy to Aristotle. So how did Epicurus get into atoms? Your link explains that and that delights me. :heart:

The turmoil of his years is interesting. It sure was not homeostatic! Today, Epicurus is nowhere near as well known as Aristotle and Plato who were advanced by the Church and scholasticism. The Bible does not give us the math and science that was available in its day. We were given a mythology of creation, and of deities and demons, that is contrary to science and what some of us believe is truth, but appears to be based on Sumerian stories of the gods, that were plagiarized by those we know as Jews today. How different history might have been if Epicurus's philosophy had become the winning philosophy! Aristotle is very important but if he had been adopted along with Epicurus and the atomic system, might history have gone very differently, and might we know a different world today, with a totally different understanding of "human nature"?

I am really stoked!. :grin: :heart:

He was the first to formalize it into a moral code and sort of traditionalize it, as it were, as opposed to the Platonic and Aristotelian models, which were more focused on forms, and logic. — Garrett Travers

Okay, you are saying he is an empiricist because he is a materialist? That is he believes the cosmos consists only of atoms and voids, and it is the mothing and quantitative qualities of atoms that gave form to everything in the cosmos, and furthermore, that true knowledge is provable by both observation and logic.

It would be fun if we could replay history and have the Church base scholasticism on Epicurus instead of Aristotle. Oh my, you have made this discussion much more exciting than I expected! I am going to take a break and contemplate the possibility. Scholasticism replied on Plato and his perfect forms supporting the Christian notion of God and perfection, and also Aristotle with his logic for knowing truth. But as we know, there was a huge backlash to Artistotle and the Church's claim to truth. Bacon gave us inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning depends on materialism versus spiritualism in that it is something that can be observed. God and his spiritual realm is not something we can observe. Do others see where materialism is important or am I off track? To be an empiricist is to be a materialist and this opposes superstition. Christianity does not oppose superstition because it depends on believing the supernatural is more real than what we experience as real and it does not follow the rules of nature but rather depends on pleasing a God who is not limited by the laws of nature/logos, right? I think the backlash against Aristotle was also a backlash against the Church and essential to the enlightenment and our liberty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAdpPABoTzE

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.
— wikipedia

Are those Romantic values? I don't think so.

There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole?
— Athena

You were very clear, but I don't think the only two choices are Romanticism and technocracy. — T Clark

Why do you not agree with the Wikipedia definition of the Enlightenment? Thomas Jefferson plagiarized John Locke when he wrote the US Declaration of Independence, except instead of the right to land as Locke mentioned, Jefferson said a right to pursue happiness. Considering how important land is to our survival I kind of regret Jefferson replacing that with the right to pursue happiness, however, we should understand that interest in pursuing happiness is an idea coming from Aristotle and Cicero.

In Aristotelian texts, the happiness was interpreted in the light of one
of crucial concepts of his philosophical system, completion (enthelechy).
It indicated the motion of every righte-ous thing to its genuine end which
was thought to be identical with the universal order led by Natural (or
Divine) Law. In social life, the completion was combined with the
happiness of communities and human beings reached through high
intellectual and moral virtues and relevant habits. The role of outstanding
legislators and statesmen was appreciated by Aris-totle as key condition
for social progress.

In Cicero’s texts, the concept of happiness was also linked with the
Natural Law: “[...] the ultimate good of man is life in accordance with
Nature”. The author proceeded from the Stoic theory, viewing in the
Universe a republic (consisting of stars, planets, animals, men) led by
Logos. Men are held as the main object of Logos emanation, and it is
present in their soul as the reasonable part. As a result, virtues; spring
from reason, the most divine element in man”. In communal life, the
connection with Logos was brought about by outstanding statesmen, who,
after death, dwelt in “a high place full of stars, shining and
splendid”. They turn into the heavenly patrons of Rome personifying its
basic virtues – virtus, gravitas, dignitas, fides, clementia. Felicitas
(happiness) was assessed as a balance of them. According to Cicero, the
best state form capable to secure the happiness of citizen was the republic
with mixed government system uniting the elements of monarchy,
aristocracy and democracy — Albert Stepanyan and Lilit Minasyan

The enlightenment was based on that reasoning. Something we might better appreciate if compared to the Christian dark age of beings cursed and thrown out of Eden and in need to being saved by a supernatural power. All religions tending to be conservative and hold back human progress, leaving people with no books and no way of knowing anything but what religious leaders tell them and a few survival skills and totally dependent on authority above them. In such conditions what kind of happiness could a human hope to have? Unless they feared a god, what would make them virtuous?

Well, empiricism is the legacy of Epicurus, — Garrett Travers

How is that so?

My two cents on Romanticism as I am pondering it now...
The Enlightenment of the 17-18th centuries sought out to understand the world using what they referred to as "Reason". This idea, borrowed from the Stoics but changed slightly to mean empirical reasoning and not necessarily some "Universal Reason" (though there was some of this too with Deism). It was simply the notion brought about from the New Science being explored by Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Huygens, Descartes, Boyle, et al.

However, the scientific worldview seemed to constantly focus on the empirical and even with that, Political Science was the main focus. The individual human condition was given short-shrift. The 19th century can be seen as a sort of backlash.. Existentialism started the trend of "the individual" and the existential questions of life. What does it mean to be a human consciousness, from the interior perspective, not just the empirical one. These types of human struggles are captured more in art, literature, feelings, personal observations and experiences, etc.. The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.

The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc.It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics.. Rousseau and his general "General Will", Herder, or Schelling and Fichte's emphasis on ethnic politics helped push movements that divided Europe less on Imperial or Universal lines and more on common cultural and historical ties. It was not universal in the Enlightenment sense of only worrying about the individual's rights and securities, but about cultural identity. Individualistic, but at the level of culture, not the person. That would be more emphasized with the Existentialists. — schopenhauer1

Oh my God, I love you! The difference between "empirical reasoning" as opposed to "Universal Reason" is a wonderful thing to contemplate! Oh dear, I am so excited my brain shut down. I need to do some breathing to calm down. What is the difference?

Cicero thought with reason we could come to agreements on what is so and what should be and how to get from what is to what should be. He thought with would be universal. Socrates was most concerned with expanding our consciousness which is right in line with Cicero's belief that we can progress with reason. "There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil.“ — Marcus Tullius Cicero, book De Legibus Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1931662-marcus-tullius-cicero-there-is-a-true-law-a-right-reason-conformable-t

Yeoza! "The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc." I could be wrong but I think Kierkegaard and Nietzche had serious mental problems that could have been genetic. I just don't trust a man who does not find happiness with family. Raising children is an important part of growing up. Especially if one wants to be an authority on human nature. Like without family aren't we missing an important human experience?

"The individual was being more captured by people like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc. It was from late 1700s-early 1800s and often turned politics into identity-politics." How delicious! What was happening during this period of history? We were entering the industrial age and migration from rural life to city life. I was shocked when I moved from LA, California to a rural and primitive community in Oregon and shocked again when I moved back into a city with all its rules and regulations! It is such different consciousnesses and different experiences of life and who we are. Just this month a reporter gave us a woman in the contested region of Ukraine, who said she wants nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine, but just wants to be left alone. She cared nothing about politics. When I was raising my family in a rural area I wasn't politically aware, because what was on my mind was my family, the dogs, chickens, garden, and the small-town community events like the quaint fair where we showed off our produce and domestic skills and talents.

Eventually what captured my mind were the Greek gods and especially the goddesses and learning to become my own hero. :lol: I was definitely romantic and knew nothing about what oil has to do with the economy and war and military-industrial complex. I am so political now. Thank you for awakening my memory of my past. What we think we know of human nature should not be based exclusively on the limits of our own lives and a small group of associates who are just like us.

I certainly think support for our nation and government is often expressed in romantic terms, but I think democracy is a down-to-earth, practical way of governing. I don't think the founders of the US were romantics at all. You, on the other hand, seem to be. Is that something that might lead you to support risky policies in the name of national solidarity and tradition? — T Clark

I think many of the US founding fathers were romantics.

The history for this begins with the crusades and the discovery of Greek and Roman classics revealing ancient civilizations that were more advanced than rural, agrarian Europe under Christianity and kings. This was an embarrassment for the church and to maintain its authority, it claimed that knowledge as its own. Classical information was the core of scholasticism. At this time the Church relied heavily on Plato and Aristotle. The classics became the foundation of liberal education and were secularized, giving us the Age of Reason.

The "liberal arts" were originally those disciplines deemed by the Ancient Greeks to be essential preparation for effective participation in public life. Grammar, logic, and rhetoric were regarded as the core liberal arts, with arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy playing a secondary, if important, role. This model inspired the early European universities (though the grammar taught was Latin, not Greek) and by the end of the Renaissance other subjects had been added to this core—Greek grammar, history, moral philosophy and poetry. Even as specialization at the undergraduate level was embraced in some countries from the 19th century onwards, some vestige of a liberal arts idea persisted: well into the second half of the 20th century competence in Latin and Greek was an admissions requirements for matriculation of all students at some elite universities (e.g. Oxford and Cambridge). — Harry Brighouse

That education led to the enlightenment.

The Age of Enlightenment (also known as the Age of Reason or simply the Enlightenment)[note 2] was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries with global influences and effects.[2][3] The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on the value of human happiness, the pursuit of knowledge obtained by means of reason and the evidence of the senses, and ideals such as liberty, progress, toleration, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.[4][5] — wikipedia

Johannes Gutenberg's printing press and figuring out how to make paper made books relatively cheaply, plus the demand for books, but not having a lot of authors, lead to printing the Greek and Roman classics provided the foundation of a literate society.

So I would say Romanticism compted with religion and well-educated men at the time of Thomas Jefferson were apt to be Romantics. I would say the literature and education back in the day lead to
an idealized view of reality, and in the US we maintained that until 1958 when it was replaced 100% by education for technology. The Prussians centralized education and focused Germany on education for technology for military and industrial purposes and became what we defended our democracy against. The ideal manifest by education for technology being very different from the ideal manifested by liberal education. Yet religion and the classics are core to either ideal. There, did I make that as clear as the water in a mud hole?

Let us grapple over what you think is more down-to-earth? Oh, this is such a juice debate of what is so. :grin: Is that "something that might lead you to support risky policies in the name of national solidarity and tradition?" I don't know? I don't think so but I would appreciate probing this possibility? I think every cell in my body favors liberty, but that goes with washing the unwashed masses and dressing them in fine clothes. Oh, dear. I don't know if I am evil or good?

Romanticism - A literary, artistic, and philosophical movement originating in the 18th century, characterized chiefly by a reaction against neoclassicism and an emphasis on the imagination and emotions, and marked especially in English literature by sensibility and the use of autobiographical material, an exaltation of the primitive and the common man, an appreciation of external nature, an interest in the remote, a predilection for melancholy, and the use in poetry of older verse forms. — T Clark

I have been thinking about what I saw in a documentary about art in that period, a kind of rebelliousness against established art standards and the elites who thought they rightly controlled the judgment of what is good art and what is not.

Wikipedia explains neoclassicism like this "The main Neoclassical movement coincided with the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment, and continued into the early 19th century, laterally competing with Romanticism."

Is that a class struggle? I am quite distressed by what I perceive as foolish liberty today. A breaking of the social rules that gives us hope of overcoming racism and has meant the liberation of women, but destroys family order and may have negative social ramifications as well. I guess that makes me a conservative although many think I am liberal. I value the Greek and Roman classics and think they could benefit us and I am not so good with breaking rules.

Romantic - Marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized. — T Clark

That is what I am comfortable with. It marked past education in the US, but I do not see it as rebel or breaking rules. It is using classical literature to prepare the young for life and citizenship. It goes with preparing the young to make good wishes for our country, as one textbook explained education should do. That makes the democracy we were manifesting, a Romantic notion coming out of the Enlightenment. I don't think there are simple answers.

By the definition above, I think Nazism, communism, jingoistic patriotism, and other similar ideologies can be defined as romanticism. — T Clark

I think that is so but so was the democracy we were manifesting through education a Romantic notion.

Progress has (always) been, in my humble opinion, a function of dissatisfaction (dukkha): we're dissatisfied, we wanna do something about it, and then so-called progress. — Agent Smith

That goes with the American dream and the roaring 20s when we were very excited by mechanical breakthroughs and what technology can do for us. But our romantic dream of ourselves could be a nightmare as we face another terrible war and global warming.

Homeostasis — Garrett Travers

I think we need some homeostasis right now. It feels like things are flying out of control in many directions. Dreams are wonderful but we need to ground ourselves with reality so our dreams don't become nightmares?

Exactly where to place Limits on Liberty is an ancient philosophical conundrum. Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said something like "your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose". :smile: — Gnomon

Unrealistic expectations is a failure of individual rational assessment, which is a requirement of long-term homeostasis. — Garrett Travers

I know that terrible things happened before Romanticism raised its self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head, but assume we refer to what took place after it did so. — Ciceronianus

The "general will" of Rousseau, and other collectivist musings, such as in Hegel and Fichte, could be read as justifying mass war and state power. — NOS4A2

Okay, I had to look up "homeostasis" and "general will". Homeostasis in the context of human behavior needs a better explanation. "General will" is explained like this

How is general will different from the will of all?
While the general will looks out for the common good, the will of all looks out for private interests and is simply the sum of these competing interests. ... When dealing with the general will, however, the overriding objective is the common good and everyone cooperates to achieve it. — Alexander Pfander

I think the United States educated "general will" until 1958 when education for good moral judgment and independent thinking was changed to leaving moral training to the church and "group think" with reliance on authority. Is it possible "how" we teach children to think makes a difference?

Right now we have so much unrealistic thinking and people not trained for democracy, demonstrate a will focused on private interests not what is best for the common good. I think technology has led to unrealistic expectations. We sure are not thinking of what global warming is doing to the rest of the world. This sure as blazes is a big problem "self-absorbed, narcissistic, irrational, mystical, emotional head,". Education for technology is not education for science. Do we have a mass thinking problem and could education resolve it?

The old textbooks in the US focused on the general good.

You got my attention from the beginning when you distinguished a difference between the live and let live attitude or the everyone has to live "this way" determination. Until you said it I didn't think of that. That is something I have to ponder because I know so many "nice" people who think the world would be a better place if everyone conformed to their notion of what should be. I think I might be one of those people :gasp: so I really have to ponder that difference because I value liberty but hate the ugliness that results from the liberties some people take. I hope others have more to say about this.

I absolutely love the picture you posted. I would like to enlarge it and put it on my wall.

Those thoughts were closer to what I am pondering.

I like the East Indian notion that when we speak of one thing we speak of its opposite as both are twos sides of the same coin.

Hitler's art reveals a 'decadent romantic' - CSMonitor.comhttps://www.csmonitor.com › ...
Dec 12, 1984 — As an artist, Hitler's taste and ability never rose above the level of a decadent romanticism. The 20 paintings now on view at the Palazzo ... — Harold Rogers

Alain de Botton has studied philosophy and he says the Ancient Greeks had a very different notion of love than we do today. The ancient Greek notion was that it is loving to help another be the best s/he can be by pointing out ways in which the other could improve. I can easily relate to this because it is how the family I grew up in expressed love. It would be easier for everyone to understand this point by watching the video that is the reason I made this post.

Not that it matters here, but I think the ancient Greek notion of love goes with the concept of democracy. It is the basic belief that we all can do better, and if we all do better, we create a better society. It is simply in the realm of what is possible. Unless...

If we pick up from the Bible, then obviously we are wretched creatures and there is no hope for us because we can not help what we are, greedy, ignorant, lazy, basically incapable of controlling our impulses, so we need to tell our sins to the priest who tells us to do Hail Marys and with prayers, we might have God's grace and our immortality. The good thing is acceptance! We don't have to be perfect and how we are isn't our fault. Even if our spouse is hurt by our wrongs, tough, we are married for life and eternity. Suck it up and keep our own weaknesses in mind. Do not expect too much of anyone.

But the same mythology can flow into romanticism only now we are angels and finding our soul mate means happiness forever after. True love is unconditional and those who love us know what we need and want without us having to say anything about it. In fact, we should not talk too much and ruin everything with reason.

Some of this is a little unrealistic and ideas of Utopia are unrealistic and yet we are willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill our unrealistic goals and this brings us to suicide and war because we are willing to give our lives for what we want. I don't think that is what was behind wars in the past, but I think it may be behind the wars of modernization and romanticism?

Perhaps the ease that we can be complacent is the problem when our environment doesn't challenge us. — ssu

That is an interesting notion. I know my brain started shutting down when we were in lockdown in Oregon, even though I got on the internet daily. I couldn't go to the pool or anywhere else, and I was not sure I was going to get my brain or my body back! I am serious. I was so thankful when I could return to going to the pool and driving around and it all came back. For sure being physically active is part of having an alert brain and now that you mention it, I think the stimulation of driving was helpful. :lol: We might not have to worry about tigers, but driving can be an alarming experience that gets the adrenaline going. We can not have lazy dreaming brains when we drive.

I love trying to think with a consciousness of the past. An impossible thing because we can not unknow what we know. But if it were possible, wouldn't it be fun to think as a hunter-gather not knowing anything else, not thinking we can call a doctor or turn on the evening news or pick up the phone and call someone. But knowing one mushroom has medical uses and another mushroom is good for starting fires as the iceman knew these things. Imagine our brains not being cluttered as they are today but keenly aware of our surroundings. That would be a different intelligence and I don't think we have it.

Intelligence is very much about curiosity. People who think they know it all have a serious problem learning because they are close-minded. That can make forums a terrible experience and it might also be harmful to society in general? Perhaps our increased hostility and violence comes out of being close-minded and really uninterested in what other people have to say? Like talking to a teenager who knows it all. :grimace: When there is no curiosity there is no learning.

On the other hand, good logic skills, with curiosity can greatly increase our intelligence. Then, as a hunter-gather learns from his/her environment, we can learn from each other. But only if we have learned those high-order thinking skills and we remain open-minded. Unfortunately, nature starts closing our minds when we pass age 8. Our brains literally change preventing us from absorbing knowledge as we do when we are very young, but if we learned the high-order thinking skills and remain curious we can greatly increase the knowledge in our heads. Then in our later years, our brains change again and instead of learning new facts, we begin having enlightenment experiences that are a more complex understanding of the meaning of those facts. This is a time of wisdom unless, of course, one stops thinking at age 30 and goes through life with a closed mind. Too many of those people are in forums pissing everyone off. :lol:

The 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to stop education for higher-order thinking skills. Their well-meaning intent was to keep people dependent on authority, the authority of parents, and the authority of the church, and the authority of experts. That is conservative thinking and not the way to increase our intelligence. It goes with teachers taking Texas to the supreme court, to end the Texas drive to make teachers teach creationism as scientifically equal to evolution. :grimace:

I really like what you said about it being difficult to measure intelligence but I think our easy lives have so muted our ability to think that we would be in the dark ages without it our technology.

Here is a humorous example. I was leaving a nursing home with a friend who can not read at the 8th-grade level. Most people would consider him retarded. We came to a gate that required knowing a code to open the gate and I was stopped, sure I could not get out of the gate without the code. Mind you I have a college education so I am smart, right? :lol: My retard friend didn't think twice before putting his hand through the bars in the fence and opening the gate from the outside handle. I have known a couple of people I would rather be within a survival situation than college-educated people, because they are free from our programming and are more like animals that have a keen awareness of what is around them and how to achieve what needs to be achieved.

Asia surpassing the west is interesting. Computers were developed in the US with government funding the research but it was Japan that latched on to the potential of this technology and quickly surpassed the US economic growth building on the technology. Japan has a labor shortage and that increases interest in robotics, but once the robots are in place, a decline in thinking is to be expected. I have heard if the bridge had not already been invented modern man would not be able to do so, for the reasoning expressed in the OP. There is a lot we could not do without being able to rely on the "experts".

I worry about a major event that means no one is left to maintain nuclear plants. Humans doing their best to survive may not realize the danger of not maintaining a nuclear plant and even if they were aware that maintenance is essential, which one would know enough to know how to maintain the nuclear plant.? How smart are we without our technology and computers?

Our computer knowledge has no value unless we actually think and make an effort to be well informed. I just left a history forum where people love bashing each other and completely ignore posts that are informative. How in heavens name these ignorant people maintain a high opinion of themselves I will never know because they sure could not score high if they were tested on what they know.

Really having people on the supreme court is so outdated. Shouldn't the decisions be made by a computer to avoid bias?

I give respect where it's due. — karl stone

I do not engage with disrespectful people.

Out of curiosity, I read a little more of what you said, and it makes for a much better discussion than your shortcuts. However, the issue of respect is unsolved. Dealing with disrespectful people is like feeding the trolls or mice. I do not see a benefit to encouraging disrespect.

Also, there's plenty of oil, gas and coal in the ground; hundreds if not thousands of years worth. Only we cannot use it because of global warming. — karl stone

Quick tell the oil companies what you know about that and get very rich. They will love you if you can prove yourself right.

What you said is true. It is also true that in nature we can see patterns and cycles.
I was thinking of the big bang and the holy books that say in the beginning there was chaos. I don't imagine there is a human-like god who decided how to put everything together, but rather, things are as they are because this is how things interact. Among animals, there are those that are the prey those that are predators and they keep each other in balance. If anyone is out of balance two things can happen. Nature will restore the balance or the environment will be destroyed. With good intentions, we destroyed the predators and the deer destroyed the environment because they were eating the grass and shrubs faster than they could be replaced. Philosophically this is a matter of how we reason.

Just for fun, I am throwing this back to you. What might I mean by "this is a matter of how we reason"? We are pretty good at achieving our goals and why might this lead to a problem?

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

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

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

I am strongly opposed to our dependency on oil. It has been the cause of the wars we have been in since the end of WWII. Also, our dependency on foriegn oil lead to OPEC embargoing oil to the US and a very serious recession that ruined many lives. And I read that we may have less then 40 years before we do not have enough oil to maintain this oil-based economy that all industrial nations depend on. That means All industrial economies will crash and that will be worse than the Great Depression.

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

You have imagined a problem with my reasoning that is not so. I am not opposed to clean energy and I am not in favor of dependency on fossil fuels.

Your arguments lack an understanding of economics. When there are so many people there is not enough land for them to own property, there will be intense poverty, such as in India. Huge populations with uncontrolled growth destroy the environment if they are deer, pig, or human. Birds do not breed until they have nest. The population of predator animals increases when there is a lot of prey and decreases when the population of prey decreases. Nature stays in balance and then come humans and they throw everything out of balance.

What we have done to this planet is morally wrong.

Things are getting too unpleasant.

In the century-and-a-half since Edwin L. Drake drilled the first oil well, the history of the oil industry has been a story of vast swings between periods of overproduction, when low prices and profits led oil producers to devise ways to restrict output and raise prices, and periods when oil supplies appeared to be on the brink of exhaustion, stimulating a global search for new supplies. This cycle may now be approaching an end. It appears that world oil supplies may truly be reaching their natural limits. With proven world oil reserves anticipated to last less than forty years, the age of oil that began near Titusville may be coming to an end. In the years to come, the search for new sources of oil will be transformed into a quest for entirely new sources of energy.
https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/topic_display.cfm?tcid=96#:~:text=During%20the%20early%20twentieth%20century,to%20run%20out%20of%20oil.&text=Up%20until%20the%201910s%2C%20the,of%20the%20world's%20oil%20supply. — Digital History

Right now the world is on the brink of war. Russia controls Much of Europe's supply of oil. Oil is essential to war, so if Russia stops sending Ukraine and other counties oil, they can not defend themselves. The US will have to supply their oil and if you think gasoline cost a lot now, just wait until we have to send our oil to Europe for another war. Wars consume huge amounts of oil very quickly. Given the finite supply of oil we may not be arguing if we need another source of energy, however, that Magna energy you believe will save our asses will not fuel our cars, at least not if we don't have an energy grid for electric cars, and I don't think electric tanks are going to win wars.

Another small fact, oil is sold in dollars and countries around the world hold dollars to pay for that oil and have tied their economies to the value of the dollar. That is a huge economic advantage for us. The value of the dollar is backed by oil. what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar when our supply is exhausted.

Geothermal energy does seem to have tremendous potential. There are about 100K people employed in the industry now according to Wiki. It's estimated that it would be viable as a primary source if customers were willing to pay a little more for energy. But in these times of massive inflation that's problematic. — jgill

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

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&q=What+state+uses+geothermal+energy+the+most?&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM%252CQKYz7W3Gqyu0pM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kTDCEwDDAluDSvbfca3UYIZrsKEiQ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwieuvHVs931AhUQohQKHVN3CJcQ9QF6BAgGEAE&biw=854&bih=540&dpr=1.5#imgrc=W4FH0oCPNOGpPM

It was merely shorthand; I was not intending to insult anyone. — karl stone

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

I intentionally did not confront what you said but kind of slipped to the side to avoid confrontation. The great age is in danger of becoming extinct because of humans are reducing their territory. This does not happen when there are fewer humans. When there are few humans, nature repairs itself as fast man damages it. But as human populations increase so does the damage and today that means human activity is causing plants and animals to become extinct.

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

That will drive up the cost of timber up and therefore the cost of housing and already we have a serious housing problem and a huge homeless population. This includes disabled and elderly people, as well as parents with children, and this problem just keeps getting worse. We did not have that but now we do.

Any growing thing can reproduce to the point of destroying its environment if nature does have a way of killing it off. That includes humans. This video may help convey the problem of overpopulation.

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

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

Name-calling is divisive and not a good thing.

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

Hope for what? Not even if we had unlimited cheap energy would that make life on a finite planet unlimited. That does not mean I do not have hope. I have hope that human beings are capable of understanding reality and like many people in China realize the importance of having one child.

This reasoning is based on reading geology books. We have a pretty good understanding of the world's supply of essential resources, where they are, and when the demand will be greater than the supply.
This has a lot to do with why some areas of the world are more developed than others, and why wars are fought. There are books on technology and how it is changing our lives and China has the best supply of rare earth material, and our car industry is stuck because it can not get enough computer chips that depend on having a supply of rare earth material, and that means a technological setback.

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

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy! — karl stone

My dear, I am the poor. It is a real good idea to avoid assuming. As one of the poor, it is obvious to me what the effect of too many humans means. To begin with, nothing is affordable. All assistance programs are overwhelmed and there is no way charity can be enough to meet the needs. Our labor is really cheap because there are more of us than there are jobs. Life at this level can be pretty ugly because we live with desperate people and desperate people do desperate things. Also, the status system is different because coping with abuse and being abusive becomes a way to have status. I am lucky because I have housing, but the people around me do not and they become like feral cats. And let me tell you, I am so glad I live in a country, state, and community that is making a real effort to help homeless people survive. I can just imagine what it is like to live in a poor country and be powerless to feed my children and watching them die, I was too close to that.

There was a time when I had to donate plasma for the money to care for my family and I was under the required 110 pounds, so I wore extra heavy clothing. This means I was risking going into shock. That was a rough period and I forgot how to think middle class and developed black humor where death is funny. Is there anything you would like to know about the poor? Can I make it perfectly clear it was from this position that I realized the problem of overpopulation?.

Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1

I think being sustainable does mean less of all those things and a totally different lifestyle from what we are accustomed to. I think our values must change. If we loved our families more than we love our things, that might manifest sustainable happiness?

Are you personally prepared to go without some or all those things, or is it other people who should not have what they want and need? I want the things I have, some of which are on your list, so I'd have to say - I do mind, yes! The things I've bought employ people, who in turn buy things. The trick is to have the energy to spend to recycle all waste - mince everything up, and then process it back into constituent elements for further manufacturing. That's why we need limitless clean energy, and the earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing so much energy it will still be hot when the sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years. — karl stone

Huh? What about the ice ages? I don't think you are working with all the facts.

That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know! — karl stone

That is a good point. I have not said there is no God. When the Bible is read abstractly the Jews who wrote the old testament, and I, do not have a problem with that. The problem comes with the literal interpretation of the holy books and denying science. I can say that publically but I have not argued the point with a friend who is over 90.

How the Bible is interpreted really depends on how a person is educated and that is why I am usually talking about education.

I could not disagree more. Over-population is not a problem at all. The misapplication of technology is a problem. I live in the UK, and population density is relatively high by global statndards, but less that 2% of the UK land surface is actually built upon. Globally, it's going to be less than that. So, if humans can live sustainably - there's no lack of room. And magma energy can give us all the energy we could ever want - we could deslainate sea water, pump it inland and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. So over-population is not a real problem; it's a consequence of the scarce, expensive and polluting fossil fuel energy we continue to use. It limits what we are able to do.

The geology book "GeoDistnies" talks about the finite limit of resources. I think this book by Youngquist or books by other geologists are important to understanding our reality. Also, a trip to India or China might give you a different perspective on population size and limits. And those polluting fossil fuels are a vital ingredient in the fertilizer that is required for feeding millions of people. Morocco has the world's largest supply of phosphate. Phosphate is an essential ingredient of fertilizer and I don't think I want to be around in Morocco's supply is exhausted.

Here, we're philosophers. We volunteer to have our ideas tested to destruction. Similarly, polititians and industry have a responsibility. I seek to convince you, and politics and industry that a prosperous sustainable future is possible - that humankind can live long term by harnessing magma energy and using that to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. If we applied those technologies, we could bring 3 or 4 billion poor people into the first world economy - sustainably. The economic opportunity is vast, and we're missing it because of an addication to fossil fuels!

It would be easier for you to convince me that you know enough, if you did not begin by declaring overpopulation is not a problem. The communist in China did not impose a one child per family policy for light reason. China has a very serious water supply problem, and places, where the water supply is from melting glaciers, will not be able to sustain their populations when the glaciers are gone. Places that are experiencing high tides and land loss are rapidly losing the ability to sustain their populations. High tides mean salt makes the land infertile. Countries with a high poverty level can not provide enough jobs, and this leads to wars against minority groups and against other countries and it drives the flood refugees. It will be very hard for you to convince me overpopulation is not a problem. Where I live there is a huge homeless population and poverty is a more serious problem because rents are so high, and none of this would be so if we were not dealing with overpopulation.

If I were king, I would command every community to measure its resources and limit its population to what those resources can support. Without such measurements how can we know what is sustainable?

↪Athena On point. We (seem to) have the means to mount a global movement on climate. Nevertheless things look better only by comparison; perhaps there's still a long way to go before democracy and the internet, among other things, can have the required effect.

Relative vs. Absolute. We have improved but there's still more that needs to be done. — Agent Smith

I just posted there must be death for there to be life. How many people want to think about that? I suspect most non-religious people are in as much denial as religious people. I believe all of us have a hard time accepting reality. I don't know if there is a good way to deal with that? The science folks want to believe technology will save our asses as much as the religious folk wants to believe a God takes good of us. We live on a finite planet and we might need to accept its limits while working on exploring the universe and trying to find a new home.

I'm not sure I should be pharoah; cultural appropriation and whatnot! I'm thinking more along the lines of philosopher king of the world. But I'll settle for philosopher.

It's wierd, isn't it, that despite all this technological advance, things are getting in strange ways worse. In my view, the chaos we see is the causal consequence of acting at odds to reality. Religious, political and economic ideological concepts do not describe reality as it really is - science does! Acting on the basis of ideological concepts we act at odds to reality, and as the disparity between our course, and 'true north' becomes ever wider, the chaos increases.

Magma energy is a viable technology. It was proven by NASA in 1982, in a series of papers entitled The Magma Energy Project. I cannot be certain the project was not developed because of the vast national and economic interests in fossil fuels, but science showed limitless clean energy is available, and it hasn't been developed. That was over 40 years ago, and in the meantime - global population and fossil fuel use have doubled.

My hope, recognising this relationship between the validity of knowledge, as a basis for human action, and the validity of the outcome - will allow us to have our cake and eat it. I'm certainly not suggesting we tear down the churches, banks and borders, to start again from scratch, making all our representations conform to strict scientific rationality. Rather, my hope is that recognising the significance of a scientific understanding of reality will create the authority to do that which is necessary to survival; namely, develop magma energy to meet all our energy needs, plus power carbon capture and storage, deslaination and irrigation, and the recycling of all waste - allowing for a prosperous sustainable future. — karl stone

That sounds wonderful and I watched a show last night about Bill Nye the Science Guy and his fight to get religious leaders to accept science, We all need to picket this place at the top of the tourist season
https://arkencounter.com/ . It is a theme park presenting a full-sized Noah's ark as though this were science. The people who present this park, and visit it, are the enemies of science. They are climate change deniers. Or perhaps we could find out which churches in our neighborhoods are climate deniers and ask to talk with them about global warming?

It is not strange to me that things are getting worse, because the ancients saw the end as a time when there was more life on earth than the earth could support. We are there. The mass of humanity has overwhelmed the earth's ability to support it. The world seriously needs population control and it would be nice to do this with reason, instead of killing the excess humans in our countries and making war on other countries. The refugee problem around the world is the reality of overpopulation. This terrible future was predicted and we can even use the bible to explain it. But the Bible is not the only source of information about the end of time. No matter how well we develop our technology, if the mass of humanity is not reduced the earth will not be able to sustain it.

And perhaps we should get a better grip on reality. Any species will become destructive to its environment if nature does not keep it in check. That is a problem with plants and animals that are not indigenous. Chances are good in a new environment nothing will hold it in check and it will proceed to destroy the environment. It could be ivy that spreads and kills everything it climbs on, and then deprives the animals of the food they need. It could be feral cats or feral pigs brought to the island by people. Thinking life is either good or evil sucks, because without death there can not be life. Everything needs to be held in balance. And I would bet, even non-religious people walk around with a fantasy in their heads about some kind of Garden of Eden where nothing dies.

↪Cornwell1We haven't made as much progress as we thought in the ethics department have we? Our desire to act (only) on the matter of global warming is driven by economic worries and not in any way due to concerns for the environment. As I thought and this seems to be true, translate global warming into monetary losses and we'll waste no time doing something about it. Why didn't someone think of this from before? Damn! — Agent Smith

Absolutely and I am having a hard time not understanding our delay in doing that. It seems obvious to me when a tornado, hurricane, flood, fire does a lot of damage, the cost of that should get our attention. Maybe better news reporting would help us connect the dots and become aware of the cost of ignoring the problem?

With regard to the thesis set out in the opening post, ten pages ago, ideally, I think it's our responsibility to understand what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true....not necessarily 'because God says so' but because there is an objective reality that's a web of cause and effect relations, and acting on valid knowledge within a causal reality is necessary to valid outcomes. For instance, imagine a criminal in court - who tells lies. If those lies are believed; the court may act morally, but the verdict will not be just. Valid knowledge of reality is necessary to morally valid outcomes; but also functionally valid outcomes. Imagine a technology based on principles that are wrong to reality. It won't work.

It's the same with the world. Nature is one big machine, and we're a faulty cog insofar as we are wrong, causing a system wide dysfunction. It's scientifically possible to solve the climate and ecological crisis. The earth is a ball of molten rock containing an effectively limitless amount of energy, we could harness to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, and so balance human welfare and environmental sustainability very much in our favour. Nasa proved this in 1982 - but somehow 'The Magma Enenergy Project' was quietly discontinued, and 40 years later, global population and fossil fuel use have doubled, and Trump Digs Coal!

If you see things in terms of chaos and order you end up with totalitarian government, but if you see things in terms of knowing what's true and doing what's right, you get morally valid outcomes that work! — karl stone

Very nicely worded. Not many people know what science has to do with morals and democracy but you do. In my eyes that makes you are a very valuable person.

I used the word chaos because around the world weather is being very chaotic! This year snow in unusual places has made the news. Where I am, January was so warm, flowers began blooming, and now things have taken a turn for the cold and we are reopening emergency shelters for the homeless.
A gal I know in Arkansas tells me it is over 70 degrees one day and freezing the next. Her weather has really been chaotic and that is the kind of thing that causes tornados. It is hard for people to wrap their heads around global warming when they are faced with snow blizzards or snow in unusual places, so I think we need a better understanding of our actions throwing nature into a state of chaos. And from there, your words are exactly right! Lying to the jury will not lead to justice.

It kind of reminds me of Egypt and thinking it is the pharaoh's job to prevent chaos from destroying the harmony with nature that is essential to staying out of trouble.

What I'm really concerned about is if climate action has a deadline to meet and whether we're already past that date with destiny. — Agent Smith

Even if that is so, it is still necessary to discuss how humanity will deal with it. Many civilizations have fallen because the people exhausted their resources, or weather conditions lead to famine, or disease forced them to move. Those people did not have the science to understand their situation. If they were living in large civilizations, they did not have the communication systems we have, so they had no chance of collaborating on what was happening and what to do. Today we have science and amazing communication systems and we like to think we have democracy, but obviously, we do not have a good understanding of how to use all this.

What choice do we have? I don't see anyone proposing solutions that are certain to produce results, practicable, fair, to name a few qualities that matter.

What happened in Glasgow (COP26)? Absolutely nothing if you ask me. — Agent Smith

James Carter was our president from 1977 to 1981. His focus was on reducing our dependency on foreign oil so we would not applaud his policies, but he ask us to be conservative and turn our thermostats down to 68 degrees. If we all did that, that would be a huge saving because there are so many of us. He also advanced solar energy. We know part of the problem is eating meat, so some of us are eating less meat or no meat at all.

Here are suggestions and consider because there are so many of us, we can make a difference. The more of us who choose to take action, the easier it will be for the government to take action.
https://davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/top-10-ways-can-stop-climate-change/

Understand, President Reagan lied to us and he dismantled what Carter put in place. WE MUST NOT COUNT ON GOVERNMENT BECAUSE WE CAN GET PRESIDENTS WHO LEAD US IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. WE MUST COUNT ON DEMOCRACY- THAT IS ALL OF US WORKING TOGETHER TO ACHIEVE GOALS. :heart: :flower:

Wait & watch. :ok: — Agent Smith

I don't think that is a good idea. That is kind of like standing on the railroad tracks and wondering if the train will stop before passing you. It would be smarter to get off the tracks.

And when it comes to consuming fossil fuels, the US was the world's supply of oil. The recession following the 1974 OPEC embargo oil to the US was a real wake-up call! Reagan lied to us by saying we did not need to conserve oil. Then he slashed domestic budgets and poured everything into our economic and military control of oil in the mid-east bringing us to the mess we are in now. I don't want to get too political, but Vietnam and all the following mid-east wars are about oil and protecting our economy that consumes more oil than we have. Our need for oil and our money spending to getting oil, has caused the oil countries a lot of pain. The Vietnam war was very painful to us and them. This is not moral.

All I wanted to convey was if climate scientists are using climate models to predict global warming, we should exercise caution for the simple reason that chaos theory implies that even the tiniest variation in the inputs (possible in the real world) would nullify any predictions whatsoever. — Agent Smith

There is a saying that when we resolve one problem we create three more. We really do not know as much as we need to know and if we were okay with that and moved cautiously all the time, that would probably be a good idea.

We can feed millions of people because of large cooperate owned farms and fertilizer and that has been a serious pollution problem. Until we reduce the size of our population, I don't think we will have good solutions. But if we all came to love the earth with some reverence for the miracle of life on this planet, that could lead to improvements.

I think the OP's onto something.

Remember chaos theory, how it began? Weather! The long and short of it is that small differences in initial conditions lead to outcomes, downstream, that are extremely divergent. So given a weather model, inputting a temperature of 2.001 degrees Celsius and 2.002 degrees Celsius (a variation of 0.001 degrees Celsius) could mean that one scenario leads to a scorching hot day and another a blizzard.

If so, the reliability of climate models that predict global warming is thrown into question. Chaos theory precludes it, oui? I believe climate deniers are in the know about this. — Agent Smith

I like your explanation of chaos theory. But when it comes to being a climate denier or believer I am on the side of believers. Most of Oregon has experienced a severe drought and the drought condition worsened so badly a new word had to be invented. "Exceptional drought" is worse than "extreme drought". Normally Oregon had so much rain I thought we would never have a water problem. That is no longer true and the fires we had two years ago, made me take that very seriously.

I like old people so I listen to their stories whenever I can and long before any mention of climate change, they were talking about how they would never go into the woods to log, without their rain clothes. They were saying our climate change began before everyone was talking about it.

I garden so I noticed a few years ago, that spring started to come earlier. I could not trust my own sense of what was happening until that also became a subject of discussion. I think many of us will be planting earlier this year and what we plant may change if we continue to have extremely hot summers. Too much hot weather thickens the skin of plants and makes them less pleasant to eat.