Perhaps try to empathise, if only for 30 seconds, with what it feels like to be, say, a factory-farmed pig. — David Pearce

Why? Do you suppose I advocate factory farming? I said specifically that we need to do agriculture better, and that I don't condone unnecessary cruelty to animals. But okay. I get plenty of food, and I like food. Otherwise, I've got no idea what's going on - and know nothing to compare it with. I'm loaded onto a truck, and driven to an abattoir. Someone puts something near my head and the world disappears in an instant. Now you imagine your life as a pig in the wild being ripped apart and eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs. Any thoughts on the Allan Savory video? He explains why we need animal agriculture.

Are you saying that which is natural (e.g., biological evolution) is moral? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No. I'm saying that evolution imbued human beings with a moral sense - like a sense of humour, or the aesthetic sense. It's not an explicit set of rules - so doesn't constitute a naturalistic fallacy. There's considerable overlap among individuals as to what's funny, or beautiful, or moral - but no naturally occurring, definitive set of moral rules. That so, I'm not saying, as Nietzsche argued, that man in a state of nature was an amoral brute - and therefore, we should be too. I'm saying that evolution has imbued us with a moral sense, that enables us to derive ought from is.

Do they agree? There seems to be some agreement but there is conflict and even controversy both between these domains and within. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Sure, but then we shouldn't expect people to agree completely, about what is moral, and what isn't - because, while nature gives us a moral pre-disposition, nurture defines moral priorities. It's like, children learn language at a rate that cannot be explained in terms of the "tableau rasa" of John Locke. We are pre-disposed to learn language, and learn the language we hear spoken. Similarly, we are moral creatures and adopt the values that are important to others around us.

What is an example of an objective moral fact? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Religion, law, politics, economics and so on, are objective with respect to individuals, and so are in effect, objective moral facts. Not in the moral realist sense, but in the sense that we agree upon values, via social structures like democratic politics, and invest them with authority.

Thespace baron mykeyboard is sticking and it'sdriving menuts.

Superficially, yeah, but it's like Dawkins. I don't conflate the existence of God with religion. Dawkins does. I'm not atheist. I'm agnostic, because I don't know if God exists or not. Similarly, I'm interested in a lot of the same things as Sam Harris, but there are hugely important, subtle distinctions between my philosophy and his, not least - the moral sense. Sam Harris is a moral realist. I'm not.

Beautiful bit of writing, W, and I'm not sure how Sam Harris/Counterpunch will respond. — Tom Storm

I appreciate the conflation. Thanks. I don't agree with Sam Harris on very much, but I too am charming and handsome!

‘Tis not. It’s a reasoned judgement about the correct action. — Wayfarer

Is it? So if you see a big bloke punching a small woman - do you make a reasoned judgment that it's wrong, or do you feel it? If you hear a joke - is it funny because you identify the ironic reversal of expectations? You see a beautiful painting, is it beautiful because it obeys laws of proportion, perspective and colour? No. Most people have never heard of the golden ratio. It appeals to the eye, or it doesn't. It's a sense. Like humour, or morality.

Here’s my view of what happened. Of course it’s true that we all passed through the tortuous process of evolution from simian forbears. But what imposes moral necessity on us, is not an instinct, like that by which salmon return to their home stream. It’s because we became independent arbiters of what is good. We could decide, we could judge. We had possessions, things to call our own, and language by which to name it. — Wayfarer

Then how is it that chimpanzees have morality (of sorts.)? They have hierarchies, they groom each other and share food, and they remember who reciprocates, and who doesn't, and punish that individual by withholding such favours in future.

That is the origin of the moral sense. No doubt, we evolved to the point of developing that sense, but to say it is merely or simply an adaptive necessity is to entirely mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self of h. Sapiens. — Wayfarer

Wow, you seem to be coming around! But then - what do you mean by "mistake the existential predicament of the emerging self" ???

It must mean something, but I can't parse it. I don't want to bang on about the emergence of human intellect in evolutionary history, if that's not what you're referencing. But in short, the moral sense is pre-intellectual, as evidence by chimp tribal morality. Explicit or objective moral values are human expressions, (not always honest expressions) of that innate moral sense.

Not so. It’s the naturalistic fallacy, that because something occurs in nature, then it’s necessarily good, or a guide to what is good. Evolutionary science is of course a fundamental science, but it has very little bearing on moral philosophy. (:yikes: Brace for umbrage.) — Wayfarer

I don't take umbrage at people disagreeing with me, but I do if they are unclear - and refuse to clarify what it is they are saying I'm wrong about. Here you are wrong again, but I'm not just going to leave it there. I'm going to explain why.

Morality is a sense. It's not an explicit set of rules - so doesn't constitute a naturalistic fallacy. It's like humour, or aesthetics. There's considerable overlap among individuals as to what's funny, or beautiful, or moral - but no naturally occurring, definitive set of moral rules. That so, I'm not saying, as Nietzsche argued, that man in a state of nature was an amoral brute - and therefore we should be too. I'm saying that evolution has imbued us with a moral sense, that enables us to derive ought from is.

Most species that have ever lived; in fact, something like 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. What survives is a marble cut from a mountain - that survives because it's constantly tested by the function or die algorithm of natural selection.

Evolution is profoundly important to h.sapiens - because we evolved. In order to understand our psychology, morality, religion, politics, etc, we need to understand our evolutionary history.

I can show this with reference to Nietzsche, who didn't understand evolution at all - and imagined h.sapiens as Godless amoral animals. Not so. Human beings are moral creatures, imbued with a moral sense by evolution, and religion is a expression of that innate morality.

https://davidhume.org/texts/t/3/1/1

T 3.1.1.27, SBN 469-70. — Banno

I cannot forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention wou'd subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv'd by reason."

Where in this passage does he refute the suggestion that morality is a set of God given laws? I don't see it. If you do, please indicate it.

Thanks for the suggestion. Where?

Does he? Where?

Hume thought moral facts were god given? I don't think so. Can you support this? — Banno

The passage quoted implies Hume assumes morality is God given.

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God... — counterpunch

With regard to his personal beliefs, he was agnostic or sceptical, (not publicly, of course, because that would invite accusations of heresy, and could result in execution by the church, who were burning heretics alive right through to 1792) but he recognises that moral values are attributed to, and maintained by the authority of God.

And evolution, again. That we have evolved to do such-and-such does nto suffice to shoe that such-and-such is right. — Banno

Who said it does? Not I, that's for sure!

I don't know if God exists, or does not. I'm agnostic. But God exists as a concept in human understanding, and - I believe, that concept enabled hunter gatherers to objectivise morality by attributing moral laws to God. Think of Moses coming down the mountain with his stone tablets. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not steal. These were not new concepts at the time. Man was not running around, before then, killing and stealing with impunity. It's one of the reasons I reject nihilism. Man could not have survived as an amoral ubermensch. Chimpanzees have morality of sorts. They share food, groom each other, defend the troop, and they remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours in future. Morality is a subjective sense ingrained into the human organism by evolution, made objective for political purposes.

I hope that clears things up for you. I did not understand the majority of your post.

Are there moral facts? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No, and yes. Most fundamentally, morality is a sense - in terms of which, rightfully, we understand facts about an objective reality. Famously, Hume objects to this - giving rise to the is/ought dichotomy. But he's wrong to object to human reason, poised between is and ought, reconciling objective facts in terms of subjective values. And he's wrong because he assumes moral facts are God given.

In light of modern knowledge, morality is clearly a consequence of evolution. Homo sapiens lived as hunter gatherers for millions of years, and then joined together to form multi tribal groups, societies, leading to civilisations. This wasn't easy. There's around 35,000 years between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence as evident in artefacts like improved tools, cave painting and burial of the dead, and the formation of the first civilisations. Why did it take so long?

Insofar as chimpanzee troops are an adequate model, they are ruled by an alpha male and his lieutenants who monopolise food and mating opportunities. This hierarchical structure makes it difficult for tribes to join together. Any dispute would naturally divide the fledgling society into its tribal elements; unless they had moral laws that applied to everyone. And this is the nature of civilisation.

We objectivised morality by attributing moral laws to God, and insisted everyone believe in the same god, and obey the same moral laws. Religion, law, philosophy, economics, democratic politics etc - are means by which we agree on moral values, in terms of which objective facts "ought" to be understood. These then become, objective moral facts. So now, we return to Hume, who assumes morality is a set of God given, objective moral facts - and so he argues:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

Had Hume known that moral behaviour was an advantage to the individual within the tribe, and advantageous to the tribe made up of moral individuals - such that they share food, defend each other, as they must have done to raise generation after generation of young, he would not have objected to - what he recognises occurs in 'every system of morality which I have hitherto met with.' But morality was objectivised for political purposes, and further, science was declared a heresy to defend religion as an authoritative basis for moral laws. The picture is thus very confused, but in my view, rightfully, science provides objective facts, which are then understood in terms of a subjective moral sense.

That won't cut the mustard. — god must be atheist

I'm not trying to cut mustard. I'm trying to say something, that clearly, just went straight over your head. That's okay. Forget it!

OK. If there was anything worth emphasizing, it was the Sokol Hoax. Have you heard of it? If not, it's worth a google. It revealed the vacuity of at least one POMO publication, and the lingo that they (all) use. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, sorry man, I just blanked last night. I went to bed shortly after, and was out like a light. But in the cool light of morning, thanks for pointing a spotlight at the unsubstantiated nature of my claim that:

the humanities are a wholly owned subsidiary of left wing, subjectivist, anti-capitalist, neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct bigots and bullies — counterpunch

Obviously, I don't know the political opinions of every academic in every university in the western world, but I have more than a casual acquaintance with the literature; and then there's things like Jordan Peterson - and the gender pronouns dictat, and Lindsay Shepard - subjected to an inquisition for referencing Peterson in her class. It chimes with my own "lived experience" (sic) of being downgraded for exploring objectivism in social and political theory after reading Atlas Shrugged.

The Sokal Affair is funny. Sokal Squared is even funnier, but what does it really illustrate? That people are lazy and don't like to admit when they don't understand (nonsensical post modernist jargon)? The problem, I think is that, Alan Sokal could just as easily have written a nonsense physics paper - and submitted it to a physics journal, and got it published. Would that demonstrate the vacuity of physics? No. Just the laziness of the editor.

I read your post, and informative as it is, I'm having hella job forming a coherent reply. So I'm not gonna. Thanks for your input, and no criticism of the content, but "Hmm...that's interesting" is all I've got so far.

And actually I don't even agree with the statement you made, "It's not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail." But it is not at all a leftist statement, whether it is true or not. You specifically chose to call it a leftist agenda, due to your bias. I really don't know how to explain this in greater detail. — god must be atheist

Oh dear!

I do not invite you to agree with the statement. It's a quote from a villain in a film, I described as one of the most evil things I've ever heard. Yet it describes the left wing ACADEMIC AGENDA perfectly. They left de-platform right wingers. i.e. What in effect they are saying is: "it's not enough that I succeed, everyone else must fail."

You might make the effort to understand before dishing out ad homs willy nilly!

What I call your bias is that you go against reason due to a conviction to an ideology. Your ideology is not communist, no problem, but you develop false opinions due to your strong conviction to your ideology. — god must be atheist

Could you please provide examples - because without them, this is just an ad homniem attack, to which I say - pish!

Is it possible you're conflating hyperthymia with mania? Yes, unusually temperamentally happy people have proverbially rose-tinted spectacles. Their affective biases need to be exhaustively researched before any bid to create a hyperthymic society. But the kind of temperament I had in mind is exemplified by the author of The Precipice (2020). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Precipice:_Existential_Risk_and_the_Future_of_Humanity — David Pearce

I searched hyperthymia - and those are apparently, associated behaviours. I have no personal knowledge of the condition.

I also read your link on The Precipice, and I think Ord is missing a piece of the puzzle, and it's something that's difficult to understand - I'm trying to tell you about.

Essentially, it's the consequence of Galileo's trial for the heresy. I believe declaring Galileo grievously suspect of heresy divorced science as an understanding of reality, from science as a tool - such that we used the tools without regard to a scientific understanding of reality. We developed and applied technology in pursuit of ideological ends. As a consequence, we've applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons - and IMO, that's precisely what you are proposing to do.

Maybe there will come a time when we understand genetics well enough, that the risk of altering the human genome - for every subsequent generation, is a tiny risk worth taking, but that isn't just yet. Right now, we are faced with an existential crisis that is the consequence of the misapplication of technology, for ideological ends. A scientific understanding of reality is the right basis for applying technology, or else you get 'monkeys with machine guns' - or as Ord has it: "We gained the power to destroy ourselves, without the wisdom to ensure that we avoid doing so." That wisdom was denied us by accusations of heresy.

I don't wish to debate vegetarianism with you, because I think it's a perfectly valid choice, but it's absolutely not a moral imperative. Nor is it necessary to a sustainable future. Maybe, one day - we'll be able to grow meat in vats without any conscious agent suffering, but that isn't just yet. Further, I believe agriculture has a vital role to play in resisting desertification. See this Ted Talk by Allan Savory:

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_fight_desertification_and_reverse_climate_change

We certainly need to do farming better, and in order to do so - we need limitless clean energy from magma, which is the most scientifically fundamental, most environmentally beneficial, and least disruptive thing we could possibly do to secure the future. I could maybe imagine your genetic proscription for gradients of superhuman bliss working out in a prosperous sustainable future, but while the world is a basket case barrelling toward extinction, being deliriously happy nonetheless, seems to me a sticking plaster on a still gaping wound. I know you keep saying it wouldn't be like that; that we wouldn't lose our ability to navigate a still - hostile environment, but how can you possibly know?

Why did you leave out the right wing academic agenda? Is it any different? No, it is not any different. — god must be atheist

I have political opinions, sure. I'm a capitalist - for example. I'm not a communist. If you want to call that bias - then I'm biased. I studied sociology and politics, and can assure you that the humanities are a wholly owned subsidiary of left wing, subjectivist, anti-capitalist, neo marxist, post modernist, politically correct bigots and bullies. There is no right wing political opinion informing the humanities because they are de-platformed at every level - up to and including policy, as my post about Russel Group universities shows. That's a far more pernicious form of bias, than selection bias, or having a political opinion. It's blatant. i.e. bias by policy, and it's a particular claim by the left - that they are justified in doing so. The right argue for academic freedom, and freedom of thought and expression. The left want their ideas to be dictatorial. Opposing academic dictatorship doesn't make me biased. It simply means I'm not utterly insane!

The pleasure-pain axis plays an indispensable signalling role in organic (but not inorganic) robots. When information-signalling wholly or partly breaks down, as in severe chronic depression or mania, the results are tragic. But consider high-functioning depressives and high-functioning hyperthymics. High-functioning hyperthymics tend to enjoy a vastly richer quality of life. — David Pearce

Hyperthymics engage in denial to rationalise their overly-positive mood. They lose the ability to navigate rationally, and the consequences can be just as tragic. Suffering doesn't go away just because the person isn't weeping. We are after all social beings, and hyperthymics go around inflicting their risk taking, attention seeking, libidinous psychology on others.

Let's for now set aside futuristic speculation on an advanced civilization based on gradients of superhuman bliss. What are the pros and cons of using gene-editing to create just a hyperthymic society – where everyone enjoys a hedonic set-point and hedonic range comparable to today's genetically privileged hedonic elite? — David Pearce

There would be no downsides if people were incapable of experiencing them. The world could be falling apart around them and they wouldn't care. That's my point. People need to be pissed off about things in order to prevent them. Thou shalt not kill. Who cares? Thou shalt not steal. Who cares? Hyperthymics don't care.

Their fate is not a sociologically credible model for a world based on gradients of genetically programmed well-being. — David Pearce

It's fiction, sure - but it illustrates a point, that relates to my previous comments about a systematic, scientific approach to the application of technology. Start with limitless clean energy from magma, carbon capture, desalination, irrigation - and secure sustainable prosperity for the world, and maybe people wouldn't be depressed. Starting with genetic engineering is exactly why we are headed for extinction; that we use science, but don't observe a scientific understanding of reality, so apply the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons.

Fish are sentient beings. — David Pearce

Are they? I thought they were:

organic (but not inorganic) robots. — David Pearce

Or do you reserve such dehumanising ideas solely for humans? Humans are sentient beings at the top of the food chain. Fish are meat. Humans eat meat, and need to produce it sustainably rather than dredge to oceans to death. I do not condone animals suffering any more than is necessary, but they're mortal, and humane farming is far kinder than nature - which really is red in tooth and claw. Most humans born will reach maturity. That's not so in nature.

I promise that transhumanists are as keen as anyone on a prosperous, sustainable future. — David Pearce

I don't doubt that, but you'll not achieve it with an unsystematic approach to science, and also, I very much doubt that:

Upgrading our reward circuitry will ensure that sentient beings are better able to enjoy it. — David Pearce

Interfering in the human genome, so altering every subsequent human being who will ever live, is a risk that's not justified by depression; for all the reasons stated. I think we need to suffer the consequences of things that are bad for us; and if we don't feel the suffering, we will still suffer, but just won't know that we are suffering.

I am from Bristol in the South West. A hot bed of leftism and Pro-Palestinian activism. I am embarrassed for voting for Corbyn because I now consider him very Anti-Semitic. — Andrew4Handel

I'm sorry. I don't know where I got the impression you're from the North. It's been deleted, so I can't check. Anyhow, I enjoyed the discussion, but I need to wash and eat.

I presume the absurd attempted distractions concerning communism and UK politics will continue until they are modded out, but that anyone with any sense will ignore them. — Baden

Are you okay Baden? Did your nine year old get a hold of your keyboard again? Or is that really you?

I have never understood why being left wing means you have to oppose Israel. I think the reason most people oppose Israel is Left wing ideology, Islamic pressure or simple anti-Semitism. A lot of Muslims in the UK actually support Israel but they are not allowed to do so publicly. A lot of Iranians support Israel because they don't support the Iranian regime and its support of war and terrorism. No one's support of the Palestine seems to be unbiased and often relies on canards and lies including blood libel. — Andrew4Handel

Maybe Jews have been too economically successful - too involved in finance and business, to be trusted around the Labour Party's precious communist ideals. I think you're right about some Muslims withdrawing support for Palestine - but I'm not sure that translates directly into support for Israel. It's a Sunni/Shi-ite thing, related to in turn to Saudi Arabia and Iran vying for influence in the middle east - but I can't say I understand it entirely.

Opinion, I suppose. I couldn't honestly tell you what it's based on, except a lifelong interest in politics.

Faint praise is still praise. For me, the Tories need to make good on brexit in the coming years. (I don't know how possible that will be given the pandemic, but...) They can use their new found freedom from Brussels to invest in industry, like China does - and so enable us to compete.

The obsession with Israel is really pathological. — Andrew4Handel

Jews have traditionally voted Labour - and so do Muslims. They are fighting for control of the party. So the Israel/Palestine conflict (and every other conflict of identity) is occurring within the Labour Party, as well as in the middle east. Remember when Alastair Campbell said "We don't do God." Wise words!

I Have always voted labour but they have made themselves unelectable and I feel relieved when they get thrashed in elections. I won't stoop to voting Tory so I may have to vote an independent candidate next time. — Andrew4Handel

I was raised in the red wall constituencies Labour lost in the North, and I will vote Tory. They may be horrible bastards, but it works economically - and at least they don't take everyone else's side against our own. Labour took the North for granted - while pursuing their identity politics agenda, and I don't fancy their politically correct chances of repairing that damage, ever. If the Tories can create economic opportunity in the North - and that wouldn't take much investment because the north is poor compared to the south east, they will be impossible to displace.

I am comparing them to something else to show how exaggerated the vilification of Israel is. — Andrew4Handel

Andrew,

Please be aware that criticism of Islam could lead to the UK Labour Party turning itself inside out for several years, and going AWOL at the height of a domestic crisis - like they did during brexit. Choose your words carefully. You know the left are very, very easily distracted by political correctness. A comment like yours could, quite conceivably, put the whole of the left out of action for years to come.

Let’s genetically eliminate hedonic sub-zero experience altogether. — David Pearce

I have a sense that suffering helps us navigate, and altering the genetic hedonic pre-disposition would reciprocally alter the genetic basis of suffering, and leave us incapable of overcoming even the slightest obstacle. Like the fat people in the floaty chairs! Or the 30 million dead colonists on Miranda - in the film Serenity, who had unending bliss forced upon them, and just laid down and died.

This is quite aside from the fact that it's an unsystematic application of science, that by rights should start with limitless clean energy, carbon capture, desalination and irrigation, hydrogen fuel, total recycling, fish farming etc; so as to secure a prosperous sustainable future. I know that would make me, genuinely, much happier.

"The establishment of Israel is the basic threat that the Arab nation in its entirety has agreed to forestall. And since the existence of Israel is a danger that threatens the Arab nation, the diversion of the Jordan waters by it multiplies the dangers to Arab existence. Accordingly, the Arab states have to prepare the plans necessary for dealing with the political, economic and social aspects, so that if necessary results are not achieved, collective Arab military preparations, when they are not completed, will constitute the ultimate practical means for the final liquidation of Israel."

(preamble to the final statement - 1964 Arab League summit meeting convened in Cairo)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_over_Water_(Jordan_river)

It's the deliberate biasing of academic research; and it reminds me of Superman II - where Lex Luthor, played by Gene Hackman says one of the most profoundly evil things I've ever heard. He says: "It's not enough that I succeed - everyone else must fail." That's the left wing academic agenda in a nutshell. They cannot make their arguments stick where others are free to point out the obvious, and systematic inadequacies of their ideas - which simply fall flat if not shoved down people's throats under threat of excommunication. That is, if you can penetrate the unnecessary jargon, hiding a post modern philosophical basis that encourages deceit insofar as it downgrades objective truth to socially constructed power relations, constructed, they claim, solely to oppress women, homosexuals and people of colour. Who thinks like that? ...other than Lex Luthor?

Point of all of this? I guess: be very skeptical of studies that involve surveys, and 'markets solve everything' approaches to academia. — csalisbury

I'd be more wary of this:

Russell Group university accused of Soviet-style censorship
Camilla Turner 7 hrs ago

A Russell Group university has been accused of Soviet-style censorship after requiring new humanities courses to “move away” from a “white, Eurocentric” curriculum.

Academics at Exeter University’s department of Social Sciences and International Studies (SSIS) have been told that they should “integrate” these changes when updating existing modules or creating new ones.

One lecturer said he is “shocked” at the stipulation and claimed the faculty - which oversees a number of disciplines including law, politics, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology - is undermining academic freedom “in the most profound sense”.

"It is like there is a Maoist cultural revolution taking place in our centres of learning,” one academic told The Telegraph.

"It is just ridiculous - we are supposed to be a leading Russell Group university. This affects thousands of students and hundreds of academics.”

The academic said the movement to “decolonise” the curriculum has swiftly progressed from a “faddish fringe theory” to being “adopted as the new orthodoxy” in universities.

He likened the approach to the Soviet Union where academics might be asked to prove how their courses would advance radical socialism in the face of reactionary capitalist imperialism from the West.

“What’s the difference here in the UK, where we are supposed to be a free liberal democracy?” he said.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russell-group-university-accused-of-soviet-style-censorship/ar-BB1gL6aH?ocid=msedgntp

I think it extraordinary that Dave Pearce propounds on the most outlandish and frankenstein-esque implications of science - without any apparent objection by religious and subjectivist fundamentalists that have assailed me here for months on end, for suggesting science is a significant truth, the most sober and fundamental implications of which we need to pay attention to - vis a vis, the sustainability of our existence.

Pearce has repeatedly refused to acknowledge my argument that science describes an understanding of reality that implies a systematic application of technologies necessary to a sustainable future. The genetic technologies Pearce advocates are logically subsequent to the technologies to harness heat energy from magma, to produce limitless clean electricity, to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle - not least because without these technologies applied first, genetically engineered super-longevity could not be supported environmentally. It would be a disaster.

Pearce's "wouldn't it be cool" approach to science is the very anthesis of my argument that science and technology need to be applied systematically, and for the right reasons to achieve sustainable prosperity, and I reasonably expected mine to be the more palatable view, yet uncanny valley bio-tech nightmares do seem to be what the customer wants! Sustainability, not so much!

Meanwhile, people really are dieing. Why do we allow that to happen? — Echarmion

I explained the philosophical nature of the problem - and the solution. It's religious identity maintained in denial of the validity of a scientific understanding of reality, we should have accepted in common as truth from around 1635. That's not what happened. Instead, science was decried as heresy, even while it was used to drive the Industrial Revolution. It's like giving machine guns to monkeys. We have advanced technologies while remaining ideologically primitive; it's bound to end badly.

we need to determine if Zizek's line of thought still could be relevant. — Number2018

Zizek: “Maybe I’m too much a humanist utopian, but secretly I hope that the coronavirus crisis will scare the shit out of Israelis and Palestinians and seduce them into, ‘Okay, let’s try a little bit more of collaboration and mutual help.’

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-slavoj-zizek-s-brutal-dark-formula-to-save-the-world-1.8898051

Left wing clowns like Zizek wouldn't know philosophy if it hit them in the eye!

"My formula is much more brutal, and darker. The state should simply guarantee that nobody actually starves, and perhaps this even needs to be done on an international scale, because otherwise you will get refugees. For our part, we need to forget about cars, air travel, fashion – and everyone should give back to society according to their ability. This means, for one thing, that the state should be given a certain right to mobilize people when needed. Can you imagine any other way to solve the problems we face?”

Yes, I can. I have explained how to achieve a prosperous sustainable future - 1,111 times on this forum, but left wingers, who use sustainability as an anti-capitalist bettering ram, don't want solutions. They want problems they can exploit for political ends - from the environment, to BLM, to Israel and Palestine. They don't really care people are dying. They just want to signal their virtue.

Didn't miss it. Did it escape you that it was not responsive? But of course if you're right, why bother? Israelis and Palestinians, Counterpunch is sure it's hopeless, so have at it. And everyone else. save your breath. Is that your position, your "solution"? — tim wood

Did it escape you that it was not responsive? — tim wood

Could you explain what you mean by this?

You asked for solutions. I explained the real nature of the problem and gave you the solution. The solution is sound. It's not the fault of the solution that it will - almost certainly, not be adopted.

1,111 posts on this forum, on this subject, met by indifference similar to your own, convince me of that.

Solutions? Anything? Anyone? — tim wood

Did you miss my post? I'll save you scrolling up:

Here is TPF, a self-styled philosophy site, and nearly everyone posting has reverted to hostility and anger whether actively or reactively. Let's instead create solutions.
— tim wood

That's because they seek to attribute blame, rather than understanding that both sides are afflicted by religious identity. The solution is simple - accept that we are all human beings, evolved from animal ignorance over thousands of years, and that religion occurs in the course of evolution, for the political purpose of uniting hunter gatherer tribes in a multi-tribal social group.

It took primitive man 35,000 years to figure out that tribes who believed in the same God, and the same set of moral laws could live together in peace. The problem occurs when one civilisation established on this basis, comes into contact with another, similarly constituted civilisation. They then have the same problem they started with - and theoretically, the solution is the same as it was for hunter gatherers. But I'm quietly confident humankind will become extinct before adopting science as a common understanding of reality. — counterpunch

Here is TPF, a self-styled philosophy site, and nearly everyone posting has reverted to hostility and anger whether actively or reactively. Let's instead create solutions. — tim wood

That's because they seek to attribute blame, rather than understanding that both sides are afflicted by religious identity. The solution is simple - accept that we are all human beings, evolved from animal ignorance over thousands of years, and that religion occurs in the course of evolution, for the political purpose of uniting hunter gatherer tribes in a multi-tribal social group.

It took primitive man 35,000 years to figure out that tribes who believed in the same God, and the same set of moral laws could live together in peace. The problem occurs when one civilisation established on this basis, comes into contact with another, similarly constituted civilisation. They then have the same problem they started with - and theoretically, the solution is the same as it was for hunter gatherers. But I'm quietly confident humankind will become extinct before adopting science as a common understanding of reality.

please stop pulling words out of your ass! — Tiberiusmoon

At least that's an honest sentiment.

I am simply explaining how to be aware of cultural bias — Tiberiusmoon

That's not what you're doing at all. Maybe that's what you believe you're doing, but you're not. The idea of Cultural Bias occurs within a wider academic context of subjectivist philosophy, critical theory, post modernism, neo marxism and political correctness - all of which you invoke by addressing the concept of Cultural Bias. Together they constitute a concerted criticism of power relations within Western civilisation in particular. In short, the very concept of cultural bias is a culturally biased criticism of white people.

Could you point this out for me? I never mentioned such things or are you under the socially biased assumption that I was defending a race when no races were mentioned in my post? — Tiberiusmoon

When I say "you" - I mean 'you' collectively, as in - you pathetic bunch of woke twits. I don't know you personally. The only assumption I make about you personally is that you are unaware that the concept of Cultural Bias is part of a larger agenda.

Russell Group university accused of Soviet-style censorship
Camilla Turner 7 hrs ago

A Russell Group university has been accused of Soviet-style censorship after requiring new humanities courses to “move away” from a “white, Eurocentric” curriculum.

Academics at Exeter University’s department of Social Sciences and International Studies (SSIS) have been told that they should “integrate” these changes when updating existing modules or creating new ones.

One lecturer said he is “shocked” at the stipulation and claimed the faculty - which oversees a number of disciplines including law, politics, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology - is undermining academic freedom “in the most profound sense”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/russell-group-university-accused-of-soviet-style-censorship/ar-BB1gL6aH?ocid=msedgntp

Religion speaks of love and peace, but only for those who believe in the same concept of God. It's hateful toward those who believe in a different idea of God. The opportunity to get off this carousel of intolerance and carnage - came and went in 1634, when scientific method was formalised by Galileo in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, but which was then rejected by the Catholic Church as heresy.

Science should have occurred as a common, true understanding of reality - and served as a rationalising influence that brought humankind together over centuries to form a species identity, concerned with doing what's morally right in terms of what's scientifically true, to promote sustainable prosperity.

Instead, we maintained religious ideas as authoritative, and merely used science in pursuit of religious, political and economic ideological ends. What's happening in Israel and Gaza is the natural consequence of this religious psychosis, and it's just the tip of the iceberg.

Within a causal reality, there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. Acting on the basis of ideas that are false to reality makes extinction inevitable. This conflict is pathological to the ideological psychosis of maintaining religious belief in denial of scientific truth. If that doesn't change - and 1,111 posts on this subject, all to no avail suggests it won't change, humankind will suffer unto extinction.

The basic fact is that if technological advancement will, as it has in history done, solve the problems of today, that won't happen in a World with less energy production. And that doesn't have to come from fossil fuels, but it has to come from somewhere. How many, and for how long, have we needed "Manhattan Projects" to do this? — ssu

I agree. We need more energy - not less. But magma is the only sufficiently large, concentrated source of clean energy available. Consider, that it would take a square of solar panels, covering 225,000 sq miles, to meet current global energy demand. They last 25 years. Before construction was complete, you'd need to replace the first ones you'd installed - and they are very difficult to recycle.

If my estimations are anywhere near accurate, magma could meet global energy demand in 15 years, and double or triple capacity thereafter, to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. In order to "mitigate and adapt" to the climate crisis successfully, such a quantity, and quality of energy is necessary. We need lots of high grade clean energy, and magma energy is there.

Wary as one may be of the hyperloop salesman - selling white elephants for blank cheques, in face of the projected costs of ignoring climate change, this might be the exception that proves the rule. I certainly think it's worth looking at, and apparently, so does this guy from NZ.

The search widens for hot rocks that provide power
By David Silverberg

"Drilling holes into an extinct volcano might sound like an unusual start to an energy project. But that's what J Michael Palin, a senior lecturer at the University of Otago in New Zealand, is planning to do. His project involves drilling two boreholes to a depth of 500m (1,600ft) and monitoring the rock to see if it is suitable to provide geothermal energy."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55885086

Tentative start, but it's a step in the right direction, IMO.