It might relate to a fluctuating ego also. — Andrew4Handel

Can you expand on this>?

We all need it. — Andrew4Handel

What's bothering you, as you seem sad? Is it depression?

As they say, 'good luck'. :blush:

Ask the people who lived in Chernobyl and Pripyat about "social stigma". — Bitter Crank

Actually, if you do some research, the prevalence of cancer and other fears about radiation are unfounded by science.

Posty wants to be one with the forest, but he is barking up the wrong tree. — Bitter Crank

*meow*

This is from the Routledge paper I'm reading about the Tractatus:

From the paper included:

I find reason leads me to anxiety whereas sometimes blind faith or unwarranted optimism might make someone feel better. — Andrew4Handel

I have yet to read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Believe

It might remedy the anxiety. We could be wrong, but what about it?

Hence, what?

I suppose we must now talk about the picture theory of meaning, which is indubitably true in a two-dimensional world.

I personally support research into fusion energy. We just need to be really, really careful. — SnowyChainsaw

I understand that. But, your fear is not based on rational analysis. The market is the answer.

Too bad @Mr Phil O'Sophy left the forum. I would be keenly interested in his input.

But paradoxically this freedom is not necessarily a good thing and it leads me to existential angst.

People might chose conformity to norms to escape existential angst. — Andrew4Handel

"Angst" is a problem that philosophy has to deal with. It can be remedied by rational analysis of some situation and working on the answers provided by "reason". I'm a firm believer in rationality and think it's the only solution provided to the problem of philosophical "angst".

What, don't want to become one with the forest? To be of the prestigious tree people? Highly trained in tree related disciplines, and puns? — All sight

Sounds pretty boring. Climate change by the very definition of "change" is exciting. It provides an impetus to strive for something better. Tree people just wallow in mud and hope for rain. What if climate change endangers your habitat, then what?

Yeah, sorry I'm just being argumentative for arguments sake. — SnowyChainsaw

That's fine.

When fusion is working, it's great. But if it goes wrong, the potential for catastrophe ranges from the creation of black holes to the instantaneous destruction of reality, according to a few hypotheses. Point is we don't really know how bad it could be, only that it will be bad, just like fission. — SnowyChainsaw

I have a lot of hope for fission and fusion. Some really really smart people are working on solutions to the collective problem of climate change.

Check out these guys:

http://generalfusion.com/

I want to distill my thoughts on this matter.

Hence, what I mean to say with 'embrace' is that climate change has presented a problem to the market. The answer is being made possible by the 'invisible hand'. We (collectively) are pursuing the matter in a good form as seen by the progress being made. The powers that be are just trying to produce more energy through fossil fuels, which also is a boon for the economy.

My point is that the market is responding effectively, and all that is left is to embrace the market's solution, through a directive on the part of governing parties.

We must take to the woods, and become the tree people. There is no other answer. — All sight

Hmm, that sounds edifying. Though, it sounds like a really bad non sequitur.

Yep, it sure is. Even funnier is that Nuclear fusion is just as, if not more, dangerous but everyone loves it. — SnowyChainsaw

What do you mean by that? There has been significant progress in utilizing fusion energy, made by Canadians, Germans, and others.

Your use of the word "embrace" detracts from the severity of the issue and will aid fossil fuel based business in battling the implementation of alternative energy. — SnowyChainsaw

I use the word embrace, in a stipulative manner. People will 'embrace' climate change by a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. If the market dictates (as it does base on the graph in the OP) that solar is cheaper than natural gas (as it is in some regions) then the conglomerates have no argument to make, it's the economics of the situation that will dictate or 'embrace' this change.

Hence, I love climate change because it forces us to act, and that is seen through the working of the economy, which is pushing more and more for a positive externality.

In other words, we are internalizing the costs of carbon emissions by switching to cheaper alternatives like solar and wind.

Well you appear to be talking about them, but as a solipsist, you do not believe I have one. — unenlightened

It's important to note that solipsism has a significant stipulative definition when Wittgenstein uses it. I am not sure you grasp it.

As a solipsist, you do not - and this is the crucial point - believe you have one either, because whatever cannot be shown, is invisible to you. — unenlightened

I can still maintain a solipsist attitude when presented with the issue of other minds. Keep that in mind.

But beetles are in any case the whereof one cannot speak, that you (and I) can name and waffle on about but actually say nothing meaningful about, because there is no commonality. — unenlightened

Commonality? Please explain.

And that is why the question of solipsism or non-solipsism drops away, because there is nothing to be said - it makes no difference to you, whether I have a beetle or not, as long as I pass the Turing test. — unenlightened

That's true. I'm not arguing over the stipulative definition imposed by Wittgenstein on solipsism. I rather embrace it and learn to expand my own limits in my own way. Again, the problem of other minds comes to mind.

My only concern in all this is that nuclear, which is astronomically regulated and suffers from the social stigma of radiation and such irrationalities will be left behind. Nuclear is a renewable resource, even though it's not classified as one.

Interesting point. — SnowyChainsaw

It's just a matter of economics. People will switch to solar or wind or whatever that becomes sufficiently cheap enough.

Of course, I'm sure your being hyperbolic, but language is important when discussing these issue since it can be used against you. Embrace is just the wrong word to use. — SnowyChainsaw

How else can you phrase the issue? It's a boon for renewables since now it has taken a president over other matters. In other words, it's a directive that is being implemented by other countries like France, Germany, China, even India.

Thus, one must embrace climate change to solve it.

The only loser in all this is the failure to adapt by those very conglomerates you mention. If they can't adapt to the new situation with all their wealth, then they will be left behind in the new race towards renewable energy.

Is this an act-utilitarian calculus, or a rule-utilitarian calculus? — Blue Lux

Rule-utiliarian calculus.

Isn't Utilitarianism maximizing happiness? — TheMadFool

Yes,

Bad example? — TheMadFool

Good example. Just wondering about the time-perspective part.

Is it a price worth paying? — unenlightened

Depends on your calculus of utility of happiness. Nothing ever gets done with happy and content and satisfied individuals.

The calculus must fail, and one ought to walk away from Omelas. — unenlightened

Interesting book. What's it 'bout?

Yes, though, this leads to the crude understanding that utilitarianism is a hedonic philosophy, which isn't necessarily true.

I agree with most if not everything you have said about utilitarianism. But, the net-utility is still of value to analyze. As to how to define utility, could be a question worth exploring.

Well the fat man was just about to produce such a calculus, the benefit of which would have been incalculable, but some short-sighted consequentialist pushed him in front of a trolley. — unenlightened

Well, yes. This is the heart of the issue. Where one cannot deal with the calculus time-bound. It must be a calculus that encompasses the entirety of time in the future. Therefore it's impossible to calculate what is of maximal utility, at least when presented with future events.

Just to elaborate on what I mean by "time-respective utility maximization". I mean to say that the assessment of utility is time-bound; but, we can't peer into the future and say what will happen. Therefore, we are constrained to the present moment in making decisions.

:ok:

Yeah, just check:
https://deneum.com/
or
http://brillouinenergy.com/

There's also https://lppfusion.com/ . They will be game changers too. It's a matter of time who makes it to the market first. I think LENR will appear before lppfusions device is ready.

You should look into LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions). I don't say this often; but mark my words, it's going to change the world.

Or, if I have one, we can't talk about it. — unenlightened

We sure can talk of our beetles. I'm doing that right now. I just can't show you it.

Anyone else cares to join us in this discussion?

In case you are not aware, I'm seeking others who feel the same or are in a similar predicament. This isn't only about 'me'.

I'm not following you here. I can't see your beetle, only mine.