Can human beings have enough free will and rationality to make widespread self-control based on sizable commitment to reflective decision-making even conceivably attainable? — Enrique

“Black Friday shoppers spent $7.4 billion online, the second largest Internet shopping day ever, according to data compiled by Adobe Analytics.”

Not yet I guess.

I think as a matter of course philosophers should be skeptical of anyone saying they can predict that far into the future with any accuracy, especially if these predictions are used to justify drastic changes. — NOS4A2

I think the predictions are a way of imposing order in a chaotic world. It really is an existential moment on a grand scale.

I’ve said this before, that climate change, our response, is like some sort of Jungian archetype, a great shadow that overwhelms us, an unconscious response to the fears of the modern world, the meaninglessness we’re confronted with.

I think the situation we’re in is about doubts about how we’ve come to conceive of the modern world, what we thought it should be, a theoretical idea of a better world. We know somethings wrong but we don’t know what it is, or we do know and don’t know how to deal with it.

We embraced the idea of the global village, but it turns out that in facing climate change the culture differences do matter. China has no interest in what New Zealand thinks, it has no intention of pulling back on its growth or its geopolitical intentions.

We valued our cultural identity, our independence, but we’re told by global institutions that we must change who we are.

We don’t know who our friends are anymore, we know what’s right and wrong but it doesn’t seem to add up anymore.

We’re not sure anymore who we are except what we’re told we have to be; some sort of global mass of humanity to respond as one to directives from far away.

In a way, I suppose, we’re being compelled to look into the abyss, not by climate change, that’s only a symptom, and so we’re going to try and turn away from doing it. It’s a lot easier to talk about the climate change shadow, something ahead of us, still not real, than to look into the abyss. It’s a sort of transference of fear.

And as I said: we might be the only species capabile of surviving extinction. — ovdtogt

Though nothing can survive extinction. Maybe you mean avoid extinction. What do you think the number of people being alive would qualify as ‘close to extinction’?

We are still here aren't we? And as I said: we might be the only species capabile of surviving extinction. — ovdtogt

And the only one capable of creating our own extinction.

What I think we humans all have in common is that we think we're right if we're doing it and we're wronged if they're doing it to us. — frank

I think that’s too sweeping. I know when I’m being unfair, manipulative or dishonest. I know when I’m wrong.

Yes, I understand that. So then, intelligence can be viewed as a threat to its host.

If successful reproduction is a sign of evolutionary fitness, then intelligence must be a big success.[/quote]

I’m not sure, but I think viruses are more successful in reproducing than us. But we would not regard them as intelligent. But then again it’s us ourselves defining intelligence. Not the most unbiased assessment.

So, has it done a good job or not?. What should we expect from it?

It’s not whether we can prevent our extinction I’m interested in, it’s about the nature of our intelligence.

Of course we have to factor in the possibility that intelligence, in human form, is itself an extinction event. — TheMadFool

That’s a very interesting point. I’d like to hear more on that.
— Brett

Global warming, nuclear weapons, pollution, climate change, etc. — TheMadFool

That’s a list. I as really alluding to the idea of whether intelligence is an advantage or mistake of evolution, or if it has its limits and where those limits might be? Or if we can step back and observe or correct our intelligence? Or is intelligence a force that occupies the mind, like a virus?

How is Jung regarded these days?

It’s like a collective psychological disturbance. There’s nothing new there except the scale of it. Maybe this is the result of globalisation and technology. I think it will pass, though. But there will be damage to ideas of who and what we are. Too much of society will have been disrupted and too much of that passed on to the following generations as rational thought. My issue over critical thinking in schools is only one aspect of that. There are more if we’re prepared to look. I’d hoped this OP might contribute but it just tends to prove my point.

So what is to be done? Burn down the whole edifice and start from scratch? Better to simply ignore it and start from scratch. — A Seagull

What’s to be done? Persevere with plain speaking, be humble and curious.

Love it. Interesting and timely.

Whether you are a theist or anti-theist, believer in free will or determinism an argument could be logically made that the world is as it should be. That is the philosophical question that has been nagging at me for a while. I wonder if the state of things in the world/universe are meant to be as they are for a reason. I am a believer in purpose and reasons for things. Perhaps climate change is a problem better solved by diverting to more basic issues such as why and how we ought to love each other. — Jack Foreman

You make an interesting point. I can’t help but feel that all the finger pointing is diverting attention away from important issues that are suddenly deemed irrelevant”. Why the finger pointing? It’s as if we all want an enemy, someone we can blame for all the areas we may have fallen short on, like community, family, caring, sharing and loving.

I wasn’t saying they were moral, only that they were adaptive. I think it’s a very interesting idea that Capitalism may contribute towards solving the climate problem simply because they do what is pragmatic in their interests. Having a market is oxygen to them. Why let your market become extinct? They need consumers, they need employees. They will adapt to survive. Even though I don’t believe it for a minute, corporations are beginning to play the virtual signalling game. That’s an adaptive change, not much, sure, but a change brought on by necessity..

Of course we have to factor in the possibility that intelligence, in human form, is itself an extinction event. — TheMadFool

That’s a very interesting point. I’d like to hear more on that.

can't help but wonder if there is evolutionary purpose for evolution to give us way to disagree with our own selves? — Spirit12

Maybe not a purpose but a consequence that may in the long term be a disadvantage, Assuming that by disagreement with our own selves you mean the dilemmas we face as conscious and reflective beings

I had a read of your essay. Very interesting and relevant to this OP. Thanks for putting it up.

Is it possible that capitalism may largely contribute to solving the problem? — Jack Foreman

Very possible I would think. Capitalism is very adaptive.

I don’t think you’re able to talk about this in a reasoned way. So let’s leave it.

Once you truly realize the things you desire are causing your suffering you will lose your desire for these things. — ovdtogt

Rephrase that. Once you understand what desire is you are at the beginning of losing your desire for things.

Khaled is right; wanting to reduce your desires is a desire.

I haven't said that. I have said that if all we have to draw upon on in order to educate ourselves about climate change is the work of climate scientists, and those scientists are in agreement about climate change, then from what position of alternative knowledge would you be able to criticise their conclusions? — Janus

Well a teacher would allow that there are scientists who do not agree, and would show that there is disagreement, so that they understand the truth presented to them, so that they use their minds in the way we expect of everyone. The teacher would create an environment of curiosity and discussion. Doesn’t the opposition of something sometimes prove the thing to be right? Modern education is based on critical thinking, it’s the cornerstone of western civilisation.

I’m just suggesting that if you put critical thinking on hold in schools then expect consequences. Maybe you think it’s worth it to do this, but don’t imagine there not to be knock on effects.

To see that we must rely upon the experts is a realization that comes precisely from exercising critical thought. It is the uncritical who indulge in denial, deflection, obfuscation and wishful thinking. — Janus

No, that’s not a realisation, that’s acquiescence to authority. How can anyone learn about critical thinking without doing it themselves?

It is the uncritical who indulge in denial, deflection, obfuscation and wishful thinking. — Janus

Thats an interesting point in itself in relation to critical thinking. It’s a loaded statement meant to steer people away from critical thinking. What is there to fear so much in students applying critical thinking to climate change? Do you think they’re not smart enough to do it? If so then it follows that they’re not smart enough to do any critical thinking.

This is part of the point of my OP. Is education now going to be based on fear, because of the necessity? Is that what climate change will contribute to education in the long run and consequently to the nature of our students?

So then, a future without critical thinking if we are to survive; no time for “ such shit.” So we survive as what?

I see it as important to realize that Buddhism does not provide the only way to overcome suffering. In a way the solution of Buddhism is to give up on life, but that's not the only solution, we don't have to give up on life. — leo

I don’t think your comments about Buddhism are entirely accurate. In Buddhism life is suffering, that’s what life is. It’s the emphasis we put on things that brings our troubles. If we concentrate on ourselves we will have nothing but worry and suffering. Buddhism asks us to accept ourselves as a temporal embodiment of the truth, of Buddha nature. Buddhism doesn’t ask us to give up on life, in fact the opposite.

However not being attached to desire means not being attached to life itself, if something threatens your life and you desire not to suffer then you are supposed to be content with the situation and accept your fate. — leo

It might appear that way, but life is precious in Buddhism, not to be tossed aside so easily. So I wouldn’t accept that sort of fatalism.

Just a thought here;

If children are taught in school about climate change on the basis that it’s real, without question, and they must be educated this way to save the world, what does that mean for critical thinking in school and the future? Critical thinking when we say so, otherwise don’t.

We are the sorcerer's apprentice: we cast a spell, the spell is causing problems, and we can't bring ourselves to undo the spell (we could, but we apparently won't) because we kind of like what the spell is doing. — Bitter Crank

Yes, just who the hell are we, what are we? Maybe not as smart as we think, maybe this is all we are. Truth comes first. Like “My names Jim, I’m an alcoholic”. “My names Jim, I’m a human”.

Edit: not because I mess things up, but because I’m more like the centipede.

So, do you mean to ask people how and what, from their economic, sociological, psychological or whatever perspectives, they think and feel about climate change? And you're not asking for proposed economic, sociological, psychological or whatever solutions? — Janus

Correct. First of all I don’t believe that anyone here could offer a solution anyway. Opinions maybe, but we know they’re not the same, though there are many who think they are.

The amount of existential dread in the OP “Is halting climate change beyond man’s ability?”, is it real or some indulgence of the mind of the bloated 21st century consumer, lost, unmoored, insecure, not because of the threat of climate change but because there’s nothing left, no feeling, no beliefs to hold onto, no meaning; meaninglessness. Climate change gives people the existential jolt modern life has smothered.

I don't think it could be helpful if, for example, sociological thinkers were to propose that climate change is merely another socially constructed discourse, or if psychologists were to assert that it is nothing more than an apocalyptic fantasy created by our primal fears. — Janus

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Not that climate change is “nothing more than an apocalyptic fantasy created by our primal fears”, which suggests climate change is not real. See, that’s why these sort of discussions won’t happen, because it’s construed as a climate denial tool, when in fact there is something going on there.

Most people would receive their information about climate change from the media, less would do their own research. The media works on headlines, more on drama, less on information. Why not a discussion on primal fears, apocalyptic fantasies, why not look at possibilities? It’s not an attempt to deny something by running your fingers over it.

What are the consequences of children believing we are heading for extinction? What ideas are forming in their minds right now, not just about climate change but forms we can’t even conceive of, of who they are, what we are, what we believe in, why we get up in the morning?

Do you really imagine we can live in the simplistic state of mind where discussion over climate change is either agree or not and then cope with the complexities the world as it is presents to us and the future we’re moving into?

This OP was not meant to address climate change as a discussion about it being real or not, or as a clear-headed discussion. It was to ask others to address it from their perspective as an economist, or sociologist, or psychology, whatever their interest. In some ways it’s the work of your imagination. Maybe this isn’t the place for that. Let me know.

Sorry to answer with another question, but why do we want the truth, what do we want from it, what are we expecting?
— Brett
Usefulness. The truth is useful. Falsehoods aren't. — Harry Hindu

Of course the truth is useful. But the truth being sought here seems to be eternally elusive, as if it’s not so much a search for truth as some sort of psychological drama that we indulge in. Having found this “truth” what then? Is it to decide if we’re right in what we think, or to know “all”, or to build the perfect world. What do we want from this “truth”?

:up:

It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing.[/quote

Okay. So we’ve moved away from this idea, then. — Wallows

I watched that to see your evidence of decline. None. Why waste my time.

I just don’t think he’s portraying males in some sort of decline. But if you can give me some evidence I don’t mind considering it.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

I hope your being facetious. Under assault from who or what? — Wallows

It’s quite clear who he thinks it is. I may not think so, but he’s quite clear about who it is.

It's no secret that Peterson portrays males in some sort of decline with respect to their engendered archetypes of the past not self realizing. — Wallows

Maybe not decline so much as under assault.

, although it cannot be assumed that just because someone is female or ‘feminine’ in some respects, that we would expect her to apply them in a particular way, either. — Possibility

Yes, you’re right. But the feminist ethics Wallows refers to, “the feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision.[/quote]

There does seem to be a leaning towards this as a solution, or correction, to our developing problems. Personally I don’t agree with it. Though it’s not difficult to imagine that the masculine voice, logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld, has dominated in a negative way and resulted in inflexible institutions and laws.

It's my impression that people like Jordan Peterson enjoy their fame due to this sort of backdrop of personal improvement or self-help. — Wallows

I don’t see him in that light at all. Can you give me more?