Give us reason to agree with you. — Athena

I’m not expecting you to agree with me. My initial response was to the alarmist comments that you and others posted. I’m not unaware of the damage to our environment. Just because I’m opposed to your posts doesn’t mean I’m ignorant of what’s going on around me. You and others keep asking for proof of something from me, but you know I could never satisfy you.

How well do you understand the minerals essential to agriculture and where did you get your information? — Athena

Take this question for instance. You ask me how well I understand the minerals essential for agriculture. It seems like a reasonable question. But in the same sentence, before I’ve even answered, you then ask where I got the information from, as if there’s something unreliable about my source. So you deny me an answer in the same sentence you ask for one. So it’s obvious I could never satisfy you.

God, you’re so predictable, every one of you.

I can’t remember when my doubts began or what started them. I do remember beginning to see a lot of reports appearing with very loose language, claims that began with words like “Its possible”, or figures “suggest”.

I also began reading about scientists who were excommunicated because they disputed uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, or had accused the IPCC process of gross politicization and scientists of succumbing to “group-think” and “herd instinct”, or who claimed that climate models and popular surface temperature data sets overstated the changes in the real atmosphere and that actual changes were not alarming.

Then I saw large amounts of money entering the picture, generalisations made about percentages, averages, of heating over long periods and historical figures on temperatures being altered. So many of the predictions made never happened and the horror stories that began to appear became standard forecasts, even though they were based on a worst-case scenario and unlikely to happen.

Not to mention all the things you mentioned in your post.

Eventually I was called a denier. What could I do, I was.

I appreciate your post, but there’s no point in trying to remind me that I’m ignorant and uninformed. I’ve being thinking about this since 2006; “An Inconvenient Truth”, when I believed it. Now I don’t.

What a refreshing post. The way you write reminds me of the Kafka parable “Before the Law”.

“Grasping illuminations of essence that must remain abstract and general”.

Perfect. I wish more could contribute like that.

In what form should we try to grasp this reality, what language? Or is there a new language to be learned, a new mental state required to move into the future?

It’s like something’s happening and we can’t grasp it, we have no experience to fall back on. All we see is the world fed to us in old images: jackboots, martyrs, apocalyptic cities, tyrants, storm clouds, angry men and weeping women. Tired, cliched images empty of meaning, a B- grade movie. And worse, we try to make meaning out of those hackneyed images.

I like the idea of calling this thing “AI”, it makes some sense, gives it some form we can comprehend. It’s not as we imagined (how slow we are); some robotic, computerised creature, but something far more sophisticated, and invisible.

The rest is what I already said - preying on our human instincts to survive and avoid death. — I like sushi

The media, is that what you mean?

It’s a lack of faith in who we are that I object to and belief that it’s all over I find the need to resist.
— Brett

When you are interested in knowing facts let us know. Only when people such as yourself are working with the facts, can we resolve serious problems. Going on "faith" in the pharaoh, or any other ruler who is supposed to have the power of keeping things in balance and pleasing the gods, or faith in technology and our new leaders is no better than past faiths. — Athena

I don’t know if you failed to read this carefully or purposely misconstrued it.

It’s not faith in “the pharaoh” I mentioned but faith in ourselves, in who we are. What else could there be, who else should we have faith in? I don’t see how my faith in people is evidence of taking no interest in facts. Then you go on to blame me for something you made up.

From Carl Jung

“Indeed, it is becoming ever more obvious that it is not famine, not earthquakes, not microbes, not cancer but man himself who is man’s greatest danger to man, for the simple reason that there is no adequate protection against psychic epidemics, which are infinitely more devastating than the worst of natural catastrophes. The supreme danger which threatens individuals as well as whole nations is a psychic danger. Reason has proved itself completely powerless, precisely because its arguments have an effect only on the conscious mind and not on the unconscious. The greatest danger of all comes from the masses, in whom the effects of the unconscious pile up cumulatively and the reasonableness of the conscious mind is stifled. Every mass organization is a latent danger just as much as a heap of dynamite is. It lets loose effects which no man wants and no man can stop.” (http://www.idleworm.com/ideas/jung_ballard_collective_insanity.shtml

I understand that.

What I’m thinking of is the idea that we’ve created something, a runaway virus, that’s escaped our control, almost like an A.I. that’s turned on us. It appears to be of us but it’s not. It doesn’t share the same objectives or sense of ethics. It’s contrary to everything we are. I don’t mean the owners of the media, or capitalism, or a failed democracy. Think of it as a beast. If you were religious you might call it the Devil. It’s an abstract force that divides us and creates confusion, indecision, suspicion and mental instability.
How do we resist it when it presents itself as essential to our best interests? And what actually is it?

There have been a number of scientific warnings over the last few weeks that the Greenland ice cap is now going to collapse, — Punshhh

This story might help you appreciate the complexity of issues like the Greenland ice cap, I know it may not satisfy your concerns but it’s worth mentioning just to keep things in perspective.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190719135545.htm

Its weird isn't it that all these folk like me are coming up with this domesday cult ourselves individually and yet the message is identical each time. — Punshhh

It’s not so weird. It seems weird that so many people, men and women, fell in behind Hitler but they did.

“All these folk”. On this forum or worldwide? I don’t think I’ve seen those statistics.

Remember that the market isn't made just from the producers/suppliers/industry owners. That's just one side of the coin. There's also the aggregate demand, the buyers, consumers etc. Is as important. — ssu

Yes, I agree with you about how it works. But if the buyer/consumer really had that much effect on the market then we probably wouldn’t be in the situation we are in now, that is the general cost of living versus wages versus a consumerism that seems to be insatiable.

It would be well to recall that Einstein originally constructed his model of the universe out of nonverbal signs, 'of visual and some of muscular type.' — Galuchat

That’s very interesting. It’s like he’s accessing some sort of ‘pure thought’ that we probably have but are unconscious of.

My queries are driven by an interest I have in children around 18 months of age, who are beginning to speak, and how they think, what they know and how language develops. It seems to me they know more than they can say simply because it takes time to develop clear speech. I know there’s a lot of research on this but I like developing my own thoughts on it from observation and conversation with others and a bit of idle research, i.e. at some point I’d rather go for a swim.

Very simple, maybe a bit too simple. Who will own future energy? What will they charge, what will their bottom line business practice be?

No people are not healthier than they were. — Athena

You must get over the idea that America is the world.

Restaurant meals are commonly not that healthy and commonly the servings are way too much. — Athena

That’s a problem, isn’t it? Things are so bad they have to eat in restaurants.

I have recently moved to 56m and now I'm confident that my grandchildren will be able to sell for a good price, — Punshhh

Capitalist swine.

You've framed the issue in terms of an imbalance between the forces of good and evil; thus we have a "a tipping point" at which evil overcomes good and you know the rest. — TheMadFool

What exactly are these forces of good and evil?

My belief is, language doesn't have a strictly scientific explanation. It's associated with intelligence, and I don't know if intelligence is something that can be understood through the evolutionary perspective; that once we become language-using, meaning-seeking beings, then we've escaped the gravitational pull of biology. — Wayfarer

I’m new to this myself. Would you use ‘thought’ instead of ‘intelligence’? I’m still trying to determine whether it’s true that ‘thoughts are "sentences in the head", meaning they take place within a mental language’. (Wikipedia.)

The broader point is: can there be a 'just war'? I — Wayfarer

I think the efforts of the allied forces of WW11 could be called a ‘just war’. But there were certainly acts carried out that could be called evil. Decisions were made by individuals at all levels that called for decisions and acts they would not normally carry out and that would have put them in prison in peace time. My point is that the their morality was put on pause so that they could do what was required.

What is PTSD but the living with what you have done or seen that you know is evil? At the time you coped, but later the truth of things comes to bear on you.

If, in an effort to combat climate change, coal mines and coal fired power stations were closed down for one generation, then circumstances required them to be opened again, would those skills to run them have been lost?

Did thought exist without language, before language?

All that is required is one kernel of good, at any given time, because the good will take root and flourish, while the evil will die off in the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don’t think evil will ever “ die off”, because it’s inherent in all of us.

I’m inclined to viewing that as a war crime. — Wayfarer

Is that because it’s an act of evil? If not what could it be?

If your data outmatches NASA I will believe you. — Lif3r

I’m not asking you to believe me.

I have no reason to think NASA is lying about anything. Do I believe climate change is real? Not in the way it’s being reported.

I think he would have said that the decision was made to avoid a greater evil. — Wayfarer

Which would be true.

Instead I would look at the bombing of Dresden by British and American forces. In this case they actually committed the act, whereas in Coventry they allowed it, if true.

They knew what would happen, but they withheld part of themselves to enable themselves to commit to the act, which was evil. It may have been justified but it as still a conscious act that would kill many people, civilians. So that tipping point is reached by withholding the morality we apply to ourselves.

Moral purists tend to condemn any action that results in harm to civilian, but could the defeat of Nazi Germany or ISIS had been archived wi without the killing of thousands of civilians? — Jacob-B

I can’t help but be reminded of the famous story of Winston Churchill not ordering the evacuation of (I think it was) Manchester prior to a major bombing raid, because it would have tipped off the Nazis that they had cracked the Enigma code, thereby nullifying the enormous strategic advantage provided by the code breakers. Many thousands died as a consequence. — Wayfarer

I agree, @Wayfarer that it was a very difficult judgement he made, and in terms of the war, necessary. And probably the right decision, too. But it would still be an evil act to knowingly allow citizens to die in those circumstances. The fact that Churchill made the decision, and others supported it, indicates how we can act evilly by choice, anytime.

Edit: in fact what he did was to allow an evil act to take place by not acting.

I don't see how it is a waste of effort unless the entire thing is a lie, — Lif3r

It is a lie of sorts. Not with any organisation behind it, but a strange phenomena, in my opinion, inherent in humans. Maybe the Salem witch hunts would be a very small version of this. Globalisation, mass media, the internet, etc. have created the same thing on a global scale. Global madness really.
However if you genuinely feel the way you do I can understand your response. But can you be sure you’re not a victim?

How else would you advise informing coming generations of environmental issues? — Lif3r

The same way we always have.

Mary Midgley wrote a very interesting book called ‘Wickedness’. In it she said;

“We need to grasp clearly how appallingly human beings sometimes behave. And we must see that we cannot always shift responsibility for that behaviour off onto an abstraction called ‘culture’ ... There have to be natural motives present in humans which make cruelty and related vices possible.”

And what is the elevation of your house (assuming you are a home owner)? — Punshhh

I live across the road from the beach.

I'm not qualified to give a health check on the US. — Punshhh

Very few of us are qualified to comment on any of the issues that crop up on these OPs. Most of us regard our opinion as some sort of factual proof used to demolish the opinion of someone else.
You asked me what my synopsis was on ‘Humanity’s eviction notice’. I don’t even know what you mean. Do you mean for me to present a synopsis in opposition to @Lif3r? I can’t forecast the future any more than anyone else can. For me his type of post, and yours, suggest some dark psychological space where you can indulge, without harm, in some end game scenario of death and destruction. To me it’s a nihilistic game that does no good for others trying to get by or the next generation coping with life that’s difficult enough under ordinary circumstances.

I’ve already made myself clear on this point. What you’re creating, or supporting, is a sort of quasi doomsday religion. No one’s allowed to voice another opinion, if they do they’re a heretic. It reminds me of the position of Christians when they we’re challenged by Darwinism, no good Christian could voice the possibility of it being true without being excommunicated. It’s all belief in the coming apocalypse.

What will happen? Like all these things it will pass by. There will be less and less interest from the public. The MSM will move on and headline other issues. When government grants in alternatives dry up then business will move on. There will be no Nazis in Washington. There will be no flooded cities. Worse still, you will have damaged faith in science, you will have contributed to the demise of socialist and social Democrat parties who will be lost in the wilderness without a constituency, pointless and unable to offer opposition to governments on the right and the power of corporations.

The problem for people will be in the effort required to right itself from the blow you have delivered in your little end game fantasy, the damage you will have done to developing countries, the costs and damage done to energy sources, the instability you will have created in economies, the division in communities, the lack of faith in how good we can be.

But people will recover, they always do, but first they have to clean up the mess that was left by you.

Both.

For what?

So you are optimistic that we can somehow pull through without a collapse of civilisation and a return to medieval feuding warlords. — Punshhh

Yes.

How do you mean?

“Belief has to be true for it to count as information.”

I don’t think I’d want to be responsible for a sentence like that.

Perhaps a noncommittal word like "information" is more suited then. — TheMadFool

Used how?

I mean that language is innate.

I think i'm referring to issues of recursion here.