You're not even following your topic thread. The question refers to a ban on all public religious representations, but you give no evidence showing that all representations encourage hatred and violence.

That's not a flaw in my idea but in execution.

History? Where? There is nothing in your posts to me that shows that.

That's not a flaw. Rather, there is a need to plan carefully.

The flaw is found in the second paragraph of my post.

You're committing hasty generalizations.

They are part of self-expression.

Because not all "public displays of religiosity" involve "one-upmanship" or are "public insults to the secular."

It's ignored by the free world because of realpolitik. That's why the U.S. and OECD members play along with KSA, etc.

As for ending "vile" religions, that's obvious as some rights supersede others. This also counters the belief that a ban should be imposed on ALL public religious representations.

The two are linked because of the petrodollar.

On a global scale, it should reach a peak given limits to growth coupled with ecological devastation.

It will probably end as the effects of limits to growth coupled with global warming set it.

They probably matter because the human mind is both rational and emotional.

That might go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

But as explained earlier, the same fraction used to end poverty leads to increased sales of goods and services, and thus more wealth for the rich.

The irony about this, as revealed in another thread, is that just a fraction of the wealth of the few richest people in the world is enough to provide for the global poor, and the fraction is easily recovered as the same fraction leads to more sales of goods and services. And yet the rich will not agree. How does one explain this illogical view?

I recall one article explain it this way: imagine a situation where the 200 richest people in the world now find themselves amidst hundreds of millions of billionaires, and all of them want access to the most exclusive beach resorts. It is highly unlikely that they will get in line for many months together with the rest to access such.

Another article offered another explanation, as it depicted one billionaire despairing that his wealth decreased from $20 billion to $19 billion while his rivals did better.

In short, the rich will not give up even part of their wealth because wealth gives them a type of power that allows them to lord it over others. Also, for them, this is a game of numbers, where the one with the highest numbers wins.

To complete my argument, re-distribution of only a fraction of the wealth of the 200 richest people in the world is enough to end global poverty. Even better, the rich can recover that wealth easily as the amount redistributed will be used to purchase goods and services from their businesses.

The problem is that the welfare of the world population is based essentially on material resources and energy, and those are limited by diminishing returns and physical limitations of the biosphere, not to mention affected by pollution and the effects of global warming. And that population continues to rise even with lower birth rates due to momentum.

From what I remember, the implication of post-modernism is the breakdown of meaning while philosophy focuses more on the search for such.

The report is not referring to planetary collapse.

Go to this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281473

The link to the report is embedded in it.

You requested for a peer-reviewed report, and I presented it to you. You did not read it because if you did, then you would see that I'm not referring to nature.

Please read the report.

I was not referring to nature.

You mean you think so. That's what I gathered from the rest of your post.

Yes, and maximize profits.

"Is Global Collapse Imminent?"

It's not just a motivation but in their by-laws which they submit to register their business.

Even a fraction of the top one percent will enough. The amount is so insignificant that they can easily recover what was taken in a year or two, and may earn even more because what's used to end poverty translates to more sales of goods and services.

The catch is that given ecological footprint vs. biocapacity there aren't enough material resources and energy worldwide to provide increasing goods and services.

As you put it, it resides in the spectrum of colors, among others.

It's possible that life has several meanings.

Probably, but localized systems manage to make life meaningful, especially when that life is also localized.

There are many reasons, and you will eventually discover them based on various circumstances.

Usually to manage groups of people, especially when these groups become larger and more complex.

You can check philo classes on Youtube.

The catch is the effects of limits of growth combined with global warming. These will likely lead to a world without work, but not in the way that most expect.

Perhaps it is insulting only if there is assurance of an abundance of resources in the long term. But that is not likely given a variety of reasons, ranging from peak oil to global warming.

Not necessarily, as there are numerous factors involving politeness. Also, the term may have different definitions.

If trends concerning limits to growth continue, then simpler lifestyles will eventually be the norm.

It can be seen in combinations of sensual elements of the work and certain neurophysical characteristics found among human beings. At least that's what I gathered from books by Fred Turner and others.

Lots and lots of readings, in-class discussions, papers, tests, oral exams, thesis defense, etc.

It's possible in the sense that actions are ultimately limited by limits to growth.

Yes, in the sense of mortality.