This is interesting.

People think they know what they cannot know, so they go about things ass-backwardly. — synthesis

I've considered this at length, and it's not that we go about things ass backwardly, but are backwardly oriented in our regard for the Creator at the beginning of time. Intelligence is embodied in culture, man looks to - to reconcile his plans with the existing order. As a consequence of power relations religions tend to construe people as devolving from the presence and perfection of the Creator - and this inspires a lot of anti-human rhetoric masquerading as morally righteous modesty with regard to knowledge.

I look around and see civilisation about me, functional and illuminated - and I see something different. I see the intelligence and effort it took to build all this, and project that onto the future - and I see no good reason beings smart enough to build all this would not want to continue to prosper indefinitely.

I have told Dave Pearce directly I think his arguments play into accusations of the arrogance of science, so don't worry, I'm not talking behind his back.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523639

I agree with the conservatives. That's some scary stuff. I too believe science should be regulated in its use, but regulated in relation to science as an understanding of reality, understood by the moral being. At least ideally! Our relationship to science and technology is far from the ideal, but we can think in ideal terms, and in doing so can envisage a prosperous sustainable future. It's there - and maybe all it needs is for someone to reach for it.

Of course, bioconservatives would maintain that the genetic crapshoot of traditional sexual reproduction is best. If they prevail, then a Darwinian biology of misery and malaise will persist indefinitely. — David Pearce

I'm very pro science, but what you're suggesting gives me the creeps - and plays right into accusations that science is arrogant and amoral. I can make a rational argument for the benefits of science starting with that which is most fundamentally necessary to survival, but where is the imperative here? Eliminating an inherited disease from the germ line I can understand, but where's the proof that depression doesn't serve a useful purpose? And if we begin to design babies - how will we know when to stop? There are questions here that cannot be answered by making fun of the Amish, one might look to answer given that this technology is right around the corner.

Most people have. It's sort of like we are made in God's image. Talk about self-flattery. — synthesis

Is it arrogant to suggest we're smart enough to survive? I don't think so. It's well within our capabilities. We have knowledge of the threat, and the technology to obviate it. We have the resources, skills, industrial capacity and systems of monetary exchange - all of which will be disrupted by the climate and ecological crisis. We have to act in anticipation of this threat, and maybe that is the real IQ test.

Again, I get it that perhaps we are the "most intelligent species on this planet," but only if we use our own metrics. If you study Nature (and particularly observe other species), it becomes difficult to believe that we are better suited to our environment. Just watching ants alone is amazing. Those little critters got it figured out! — synthesis

Ants are not afflicted with intellectual intelligence. Ants exhibit the behavioural intelligence of 150 million years of evolution. It's amazing to look at them and wonder where exactly the apparent intelligence resides, but it's not more amazing really than to consider one's own complex biological processes, functioning subconsciously, and in that sense - human intellect too is built upon the behavioural and physiological intelligence of organisms, created by testing organisms in relation to the reality of the environment. And if you're wrong, you're gone.

I've always kind of thought that one should get the simple stuff right before they move on to the more complex. Man has not done this well. — synthesis

We've misapplied technology, basically because we didn't recognise science as a significant truth; but used said science in pursuit of ideologically defined ends. Perhaps understandably so, but with the benefit of 300 years of hindsight, theoretically - an error. Ideally, we might have done differently, and we can learn from that imagined ideal.

Human beings are afflicted with intellectual intelligence, and it's my contention that we have to be intellectually correct to reality to survive - at least insofar as is necessary to survive. Thinking in these terms, it seems more possible we might survive - for I would suggest it implies a rationale for application of technologies necessary to survival; a rationale that can be adopted, because it can be legitimately limited in its implications to that which is necessary to survival.

Thank you very much for the welcome! :smile: — Johannes Attenkofer

You are welcome for the welcome!

Johannes,

Welcome to the forum. I haven't seen you around before - and now here you are, suddenly, and at such great length. I'm very pleased my ideas have you so excited that you can't shut up about them, but your posts are too much for me to respond to. Sorry.

Compared to what? — synthesis

Other animals, inherent complexity, other people, the progress of civilisation, survivability, and imagined absolute intellect - I think, describe the axis by which I gauge human intelligence. It's not a question I've asked before. I have taken it as self evident that we are an intelligent species.

Compared to what? — synthesis

Good question. I'm really struggling to answer it. I appreciate it's not the meat of your post, but I'm kind of hung up on it. That's a head scratcher. How can I quantify human intelligence in the cosmic scheme of things, with no other intelligent species to compare it to? Is it sufficient that I'm writing this on a laptop, sending a wi-fi signal to a router connected to fibre optic cables, running to a junction box, to a larger bundle of fibres, connected to a satellite dish, sending a signal bouncing off a satellite, and by reverse of all above and some mutually shared software, I'm able to ask, isn't it obvious we're intelligent? No? If you will ask stupid, incredibly difficult to answer questions - you will get an answer. Eventually.

What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest.

You could argue, that it is in the rational self interest of the person making the decision, to save the rainforest, because they themselves (or at least their grandchildren) will be affected negatively by the destruction.

But look at the world! These decisions ARE being made for the worse. Corruption is a norm.
Either actual people are not your model person pursuing rational self interest and instead cling to irrational self interest.

Or indeed capitalist self interest has no connection to "the good of humanity" and continued rational self interest, as you put it, works towards some equilibrium, which has absolutely no connection to a flurishing society, and therefore can neither guarantee, nor even stop itself from attacking this ideal of humanity.

So I will be the pessimist I am:
Let's say you do convince people in power to agree to your magma project, through showing them, that it has monetary value as well and investments are made, to pay for the technology.
There will be competition between countries, possibly between corporations, to get the most out of the operation. One entity has to invest tremendously to develop the knowledge and technology and all others will try to benefit from the investment.

Even without bad intentions, high economic pressures lead to hastily decisions.
I heard somewhere that Tschernobyl happend due to lack of financial interest in paying for good securities of the system.
Imagine systems operating on magma. Security would take tremendous costs, which are factors, most people in charge will try to cut, by downplaying. And I sencerely can not imagine, what a catastrophe in this field would look like.

If a capitalist system manages to almost destroy the world, just by producing CO2, with the implications only recognized decades later, innovative science might well be the only saviour.
But it will also always be the next tool the capitalist system is ready to abuse. — Johannes Attenkofer

What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest. — Johannes Attenkofer

Were there significant quantities of clean energy available, with which to desalinate water to irrigate land, while at the same time laws prohibit burning the rainforest; then it wouldn't be in someone's rational self interest to burn the rainforest. It would probably be easier and cheaper overall, to irrigate the desert to grow crops, and that's what this is about - creating overall conditions that align rational self interest and sustainability. It's not capitalism per se, that's the problem, but rather the context within which capitalism occurs. Currently, pollution is an externality, but with limitless clean energy - not necessarily competing directly with fossil fuels right away, such externalities can be internalised, without being internalised.

I think I did once or twice, but just didn't realise it at the time. They're very difficult to distinguish from the malicious people who'll look you in the eye and smile, and stab you in the back for no reason. Met enough of them!

No question. And think of this - if humans didn't have innate empathy we wouldn't have been able to rear children. Empathy is the gateway to a veritable cosmos of moral considerations. — Tom Storm

Precisely so! How could ubermensch have raised untamenches?

But look at human history since the enlightenment project began.... is there a relationship between this and widespread apathy, the failure of democratic institutions, increased tribalism, the crumbling of social order? You can certainly make a case for this. I'm not a fan of identify politics but I read an interesting piece (can't remember where) that they are the product of our dying Christian tradition rather than the oft referenced post-modern Marxism. Food for thought. — Tom Storm

You over-dramatize, surely. When has there not been apathy, tribalism and democratic blundering? Undemocratic blundering - back in the old days! Things are better now than they were - despite everything. Maybe it's that everything is suddenly everywhere by virtue of the internet. That's a big change I don't think we were quite prepared for. I do believe the omnipresent availability of knowledge will prove ultimately beneficial, but it's only during the course of my lifetime we've gone from private citizens reading newspapers, to every one and where online all the time.

I wouldn't characterize people as being stupid, just ignorant (with a plethora of psychological issues [as our nascent intelligence has obvious factory defects]). Considering our potential, we appear to be serious underachievers. — synthesis

Humanity contains genius. The distribution of talents is uneven, I accept that. I think I'm slightly above average, but I'm not a hugely social person. My impression could be wildly off. We are an intelligent species, and I'm quite proud of what has been wrought from the bare earth by what seems to me, extraordinary intelligence and effort. We are all part of that - such that for instance, I don't know exactly how this computer works, but I live in a world that does. I don't need to comprehend that knowledge to benefit from it.

I believe the greatest flaw in man's intelligence is the idea that he can outsmart Nature. Observe some of the species that have been around significantly longer than have we and I believe you will find they are incredibly well-adapted to the way things are (not to the way they would like them to be). — synthesis

I get your point, but it goes to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the ability to form forward facing strategies for survival. Man is by nature - outsmarting nature, because in lieu of claws, sharp teeth and the ability to run very fast, he lives by his wits. Intelligence is his niche. All this is wrought from the earth by intelligence. Not mine, admittedly, but by the genius of my species.

Science does not disprove God. Religion carves its edicts in stone and then can't learn. St Augustine argued that no rational and divine truth could be in conflict. This wasn't the position the Church adopted, but it's part of their cannon insofar as its been expressed in theological discussion by a Saint, and so it was available.

If we entertain the notion that St Augustine was right, it may have been that Galileo were welcomed, and science imbued with divine authority, and technology applied in accord with science as an emerging, sacred understanding of reality. And had that occurred, it would have been as if a red carpet unfurled at the feet of man, welcoming him into the future.

Nietzsche's understanding of evolution was scientifically quite poor, and viewed almost entirely through the lens of a theologically informed sociological perspective, and it's this that leads him astray. He believed man in a state of nature to be an amoral brute - and took this as an ideal moral model - the ubermensch is modelled on a misconception of man.

With the benefit of almost 200 years of scientific progress, specifically in biology, genetics, anthropology and so on, its obvious that morality (of sorts) is evident in animal behaviours. Jane Goodall identifies mutual grooming and food sharing particularly in primate behaviours, and so morality existed in us prior to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence. Morality is behaviourally intelligent and deeply ingrained, and one might argue that is the probable source of the values expressed in religious texts, for the political purpose of defining an objective source we are all subject to. That's civilisation. Nowadays, some degree of democracy gives us some input into the values of society; I think it's just the same. We agree what's right and should act accordingly.

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens. — synthesis

So you're saying that you don't know if a sustainable future is possible, but probably not because people are stupid? I don't need to point out the irony there, do I?

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add). — synthesis

I see myself as having inherited huge gifts from previous generations - it is my obligation to use such that I pass greater gifts onto subsequent generations. I live in the moment that is the current link in that great chain, and seek to make it a strong link. I don't think I dwell in the past or future overmuch, so I'm slightly puzzled as to why you offer this advice. But thank you for saying it's a noble endeavour.

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can. — synthesis

I love nature, but do not romanticise it. Evolution is a brutal and prodigiously wasteful process, so being in concert with nature would make you genocidal. There's a great deal to learn from studying our evolutionary history, but the occurrence of intellectual intelligence marks a qualitative boundary that breaks any naturalistic fallacy type implication; that because it's natural we "ought" do this or that. For example, earlier you said that 25 species a day go extinct - but does not imply that we will, or ought not be concerned - because we can act upon knowledge to avoid catastrophe, and I believe it is, at least scientifically and technologically possible.

...

What on earth makes you say that? You need to stop being so jumpy. I am simply speculating that we will end. I suspect pandemics or war are just as likely to do the job as rapacious corporate fuck- the-world culture. That said, you have no way of knowing what I or anyone else has done or does outside of a little forum. — Tom Storm

I hope you're wrong.

we are but a temporary surface nuisance — synthesis

Saddened to read your resigned perspectives. Does it imply that you don't believe a sustainable future is possible? Or is it that you don't believe it's possible for us? Is your resignation a consequence of the unlikelihood of this plan being put into effect? Had you considered that the right move would necessarily be improbable? The probable course is what you're resigned to! And further you seem to imply that you're aware of the inadequacy of the current approach - that it probably won't work.

humans have a use-by date — Tom Storm

You say, as a basis to pass on the opportunity to prolong that date - like it were you now, with the right to decide if humankind is worthy to exist. Our ancestors thought so; they planted trees the shade of which they would not sit in - but you're resigned that it should all come to naught on your watch? That saddens me immensely when I've explained why and what trees you might plant to provide shade for subsequent generations. So, is it not possible, or is it not possible for us?

↪counterpunch In my wildest dreams I never imagined that I would agree with Bartricks on anything, but I think he's got a valid point here:

What the hell are you asking?
— Bartricks

I would amend his question to also ask "To whom the hell are you asking this question?" — EricH

I think it's obvious mine is an attention grabbing title - that reflects to some degree, how I feel about my reception here, and apparent lack of wider impact. It's tongue in cheek - like my assertion that "I'm right." It's a means of introducing the topic. A hook, to use the colloquialism - with some basis in truth. I address very serious issues; navigating some difficult philosophical territory, to arrive ultimately at very reasonable and promising conclusions - and do feel that's worthy of more attention than its gotten, and I'm saying all this ironically, to whomever the cap fits.

I did not mean to imply that you were religious, just that you believe in "something," which is becoming rarer these days. It's the reason I enjoy chatting with you. Most people don't believe in anything (especially themselves). And I do understand your positive outlook on the future and think that's wonderful. Truly positive people are another rare commodity these days. — synthesis

That's really good to hear, thank you.

I don't put my point of view out there in order to get people to "understand" me, as I know there is little chance at that taking place, instead, I do it simply to give people exposure to different way of approaching life, my intention being to challenge people to keep an open mind, that all kinds of possibilities exist when you are unburdened by previous experience. — synthesis

Open mindedness is a valuable quality to bring to the search for truth, and that's what I try to do. That said, I have come to decisions on debateable questions - looking to the implications to find a way through to a sustainable future that doesn't upset the pre-existing apple cart. Re-evaluating our relationship to science as a basis to harness magma energy is the greatest benefit with the least disruption to the status quo. I need to prove that philosophically, but I'm not suggesting; to paraphrase Popper 'we make our representations conform' to science as truth, and so become atheistic, amoral truth robots. I understand your alarm at such an implication, but the shadow is much larger than the object casting it.

Energy is not the problem. Humanity is the problem. No matter what issues science solves going forward, man's core issues remain. Until man learns how to deal with his psychological, philosophic/religious/spiritual issues, little changes (except, perhaps, life expectancy). — synthesis

I could not disagree more. We are essentially good. Starting naked in the forest with nothing but sticks and stones, we have survived and built all this. We're doing well, but need now to take measures to continue our meteoric rise from ignorance and squalor into knowledge and prosperity. It's not a moral question for me; it's an epistemic problem - and that is subject to remedy sufficient to politically justify the measures necessary to a prosperous sustainable future.

Look: Science is true. Science isn't the problem. It's self-interest -- yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It's the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules. One of which is pursue self-interest over the short run and fuck everybody else. The golden rulers are remarkably unimaginative. — Bitter Crank

Blaming the climate and ecological crisis on the rational self interest inherent to capitalism is in my view a very shallow analysis. It's oppositional politics appealing to jealousy of the rich that underlies the current green approach, and it's wrong. Malthus was wrong.

In the 1770's Malthus predicted that people would multiply, outstrip food supply and starve to death. Instead we invented tractors, and developed land far faster than population grew, and now there are 8 billion people better fed than ever.

Similarly, if we shift perspectives on science, and on that basis apply magma energy technology, we can support continued rational self interest - and secure a sustainable future. Whereas, tackling the climate and ecological crisis without re-evaluating our relationship to science, implies authoritarian government, imposing "have less, pay more, tax this, stop that" type policies on people, and it won't work.

Take automobiles: Well, let's just replace internal combustion powered cars with electric cars. Problem solved. There are about 1.4 billion internal combustion powered cars. Has it not occurred to them that building another 1.4 billion cars (even if electric) might possibly have hugely adverse environmental consequences? Power so cheap it won't be metered hasn't arrived yet. Somehow an additional immense amount of electricity must be produced without adding CO2 to the atmosphere (never mind the pollution caused by the extractive needs of producing 1.4 billion cars with batteries, rubber, plastics, roads to run on, and so on. — Bitter Crank

If we harnessed magma energy and attacked the problem from the supply side, we could carry on using cars, continue buying petroleum from countries to whom it is a major export commodity and revenue stream - and extract carbon and bury it by the megaton instead. So my approach allows that we can decouple infrastructure costs from loss of revenues in the short to mid-term. The cost of applying magma energy and carbon extraction technology is far less than the double whammy of scrapping the internal combustion engine, and building windmills and charging points by the million, to say nothing of the destabilising effect on geo-politics.

I really have nothing against your Magma Carta. Good idea. The reason no one is busy drilling big 10-20 mile deep holes is that the means to make vast amounts of money from this idea have not materialized. — Bitter Crank

Magma Carta! Clever. But I'm not talking 10-20 miles deep. I'm talking about drilling close to magma pockets beneath volcanoes, in the 1-5 km range to reach solid rock heated to 700'C. There are almost 500 volcanoes in the Pacific Rim.

The people who run things are focused on a) continuing to be the people who run things; b) continuing to accumulate wealth because c) money and what it buys is an essential requirement of power d) making sure that would-be change-agents like you and me remain feckless non-entities until death removes us as an item of concern. — Bitter Crank

My approach is designed to avoid those very obstacles by appealing to the interests of those few people - whoever they are. Magma energy need not be applied in direct competition with fossil fuels right way; and so decouples infrastructure costs while protecting revenues, giving us more time to divest, and diversify - promoting prosperity.

Do you mean to imply that the people, the intelligentsia specifically, were in cahoots with the religious establishment and coordinated the 400 year period of scientific ignorance? — TheMadFool

Mary Shelley is an interesting example to take into consideration of your question; and the endless parade of similarly mad scientists, spawned from the example of Frankenstein. All the while science surrounds us with technological miracles, culture regards science as something between dangerous and unholy. It's difficult to make a action movie without a villain, but there's a consistent anti-science, pro God loving flag waving hero theme running through a lot of our cultural output. Understandably, but cumulatively so, that even now - the functional truth value of science as an understanding of reality isn't recognised or claimed to the benefit of humankind, even in face of the climate and ecological crisis. Is Frankenstein an archetype thrown up by the interplay of social forces, merely defined by Shelly in the mode of thought of the day - the ghost behind the curtain of our incomprehension of science, but in any case, a dramatically disproportionate characterisation of cost/benefits science has demonstrated in real life.

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too.
— counterpunch

You are a true true-believer, no doubt about that! — synthesis

I'm agnostic, and sceptical. I really don't know if God exists or not, but recognise the significance of the fact that all civilisations have been built around the concept of God, under his eye one way or another. Consequently, I deftly sidestepped the majority of your previous post. I'm on a philosophy forum and here epistemic implications are necessary to demonstrate the rightness of my proposals, but I have no particular interest in commenting on your traditions. I accept there are people who do not believe what I believe and you're one of them. Those I'm trying to convince are in fact very few, and I'm trying to convince them of one specific thing, refined from the understanding of reality I discuss; that a prosperous sustainable future is possible.

Science, mathematics, technology, and engineering advanced in every corner of Christendom. — Bitter Crank

I accept that. I'm less certain of this:

As strong a group as fundamentalists are, they were unable to brake the on-rush of science. — Bitter Crank

...for the truth value of science as an understanding of reality does exist in an identifiable, intergenerational blind spot even unto today. Science has been used, no doubt about that, but science as an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of the reality we inhabit has not been acknowledged, less yet valued. That requires explanation, or at least re-examination as we approach upon a climactic and environmental catastrophe of our own making.

Scientifically and technologically there's a very reasonable series of measures we could take, that are beyond the wildest dreams of the ideologically arranged regimes that have met two dozen and two times to discuss the climate and ecological crisis. If science were true we could solve it. Attacking the problem from the supply side, to provide more energy not less - to extract carbon, desalinate, irrigate recycle etc, would create wealth - and avoid all the implications of the current green approach, to pay more and have less, or go without. We could make the deserts bloom.

cp, I certainly don't want to rain on your parade, but yours' is one of the most interesting personal positions I've encountered vis a vis existence. — synthesis

Make it yours and then you would be interesting too. At its core I don't think my position is all that complicated. In the fewest and simplest words possible I think science is our best bet at a future. I don't think that rash or irrational - rather I think it rash that's not where we stake our trust.

As an objective body of knowledge science is a level playing field upon which we might co-operate initially in one specific regard - and that is to harness magma energy on a truly massive scale to the challenge of our existence, and do so because in terms of what is most usefully and objectively true - which is to accept, not absolutely - if you will at least admit, reliably true hereabouts, it is the right thing to do!

We could do wonderful things - build on a massive scale and protect nature at the same time as meeting our energy needs carbon free, developing the value of land and resources, while preserving unique habitats, producing resources that ultimately are a function of the energy available to create them. We need to claim the energy of the earth and intelligently direct that energy to promote the life upon, and of the beauty of its surface. Thereafter we might look to build in near orbit, moon and neighbouring planets, catching asteroids and mining them and aligning materials across the solar system for later use. I dream of catching asteroids, it's true. But it begins with the single, most scientifically fundamental thing necessary to a sustainable future - that is, plug into the planet.

What kind of legitimate interest do you have in the survival of the human species? — synthesis

It's a matter of who I am, and it's the difference between masturbation and sex for procreation - as to whether I belong to a species with a future, or if all this is just self pleasure - without issue!

Twenty-five species disappear from this planet every day, so certainly we are on the docket (sooner of later). — synthesis

Not necessarily. We have intelligence, and intelligence deserves to play out to the fullest - to carry us as far as it can, and maybe - who knows, to star after star. That so, one could say the opportunity cost of failing to secure a sustainable future is potentially infinite.

Initially, no doubt, it was deliberate ignorance maintained by threat and use of force. But how could that have been maintained for 400 years, worldwide? It couldn't - so there's factor missing, and that factor is missing here also on this forum, among the philosophers of the free world, to whom I have appealed. Why does the argument fail to influence people? Is it wrong? Is it me? Or, is it you?

Pardon the brevity of my earlier response; my concentration is elsewhere. I have some time now, to explain - that by 'via iphone' I mean to suggest that we are not in the position of those chained to the wall of a cave in Plato's allegory, knowing reality only as shadow play cast by the light of the fire. It's true because it works! And it astonishes me that people don't see that there's a relationship between the functionality of the technological miracles science surrounds us with, and the validity of the scientific principles upon which the technology is based.

via iphone!

So a higher average of happiness. Okay, but how close is genetic science to identifying the specific genes and/or areas of the brain they want alter? I'm not the 'playing God' hysterical type, but a procedure performed on me, with my informed consent would be one thing, but on an individual as yet unborn, and not only that, but to wrest the entire genetic future of humanity from biology? To alter his children's and his children's children's genetics forever after? That's a lot to take on, and morally difficult to justify. That said, I would like wings! That would put me way out front in the intergenerational genetic arms race that would surely ensue!!

They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. — javi2541997

In court, the defendant tells lies that are believed. Can there be justice? No. So, effective in what regard? Effective to justify political power on an ongoing basis - and all the many wonders that flow from it. I'm not complaining. Where I live it's lovely. I'm observing that to retain political power, it was necessary that science as an understanding of reality be ignored and/or maligned, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution. As a consequence, we've applied technology - which is to say developed resources, very badly - and are blundering toward an abyss. I have absolutely no interest in wresting political power from anyone; but I do have a legitimate interest in the survival of the human species.

A broad based scientific understanding of reality implies that we need massively more energy - not less, to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, and can do so very much in our favour if we act now. I want to drill for magma energy on an industrial scale. If only used to extract carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - at least initially, we'd have more time and more choice going forward.

I've stated all this repeatedly here, and barely raised an eyebrow. Hence the question. I didn't intend to reply to this thread. I want other people to tell me what I must be missing, because as I said, I know I'm right. Yet tumbleweeds all round the order of the day! What gives?

I think it is feasible. Horrible, that everyone would go around grinning all day, but feasible to genetically engineer humans to be healthier, happier. We could have wings! But if people weren't prone to chronic depression half the time where would the philosophers come from? For me, happiness is transitory, and arises from positive contrasts. I think that's why people like shopping. They buy something new and it cheers them for a while, and then fades into the background of 'stuff I've got.' I find it very difficult to conceive of happiness as a constant state, and perhaps self referentially, believe there's something worthwhile about my misery. That said, I would like wings. That would be cool!

In my view, the right way to seek pleasure is through genetic recalibration of the negative-feedback mechanisms of the hedonic treadmill: — David Pearce

Good answer. Design happier healthier babies! But where to stop?

But arguing against it is like those cowboy games you played as a kid, when you plainly had shot the other guy but he simply refused to acknowledge it and kept going regardless. — Wayfarer

Amen to that!

Could you tell me what religion you are? I want to trash it to prop up my own beliefs!

You should stop this. Georgios Bakalis is new here and you're stealing his thread. — T Clark

Well okay then, but my original comments were about Darwin's Doubt - a concept Georgios raised, but doesn't actually want to discuss. He just wants to know how to do the logical notation - while sticking it to my hero, and favourite scientific theory of all time! Admittedly, wandered off a bit after that, and I will stop - but Darwin's Doubt should be open to discussion as it was raised in the OP!

In a capitalist economy, one might imagine, underpopulation would lead to increased wages, technological innovation, and so higher educational standards - as people seek even better wages by gaining technological skills. If only we didn't need every peasant out there buying ugg boots and iphones!

I'm learning so much from you. I had no idea that people fled the USSR because of underpopulation. Weird though, how they still had such long queues for bread! Russians must bake great bread!

So that's why Trump wanted to build a wall - to stop people getting out? Like the USSR did!

Have you seen that experiment where the orgasm centre of a rat's brain was plugged into a lever the rat could press, and it pressed the lever repeatedly until it starved to death? I was speaking more to the point that the unrestrained, hedonistic pursuit of pleasure has produced terrible consequences. And your answer is, they're seeking pleasure wrong? So, what's the right way?

That's funny, I woke up this morning thinking Trumpism might be a brain dysfunction, rendering the individual incapable of performing simple truth evaluation of standard causal relationships. Maybe the dysfunction has even proven to be the fittest solution to the last moments of survival on a doomed planet, as the authority structure in the human race's most powerful social organization on the planet has not evolved to the point of consistent rational response to the threat of global warming — ernest meyer

Climate change was first brought to the President's attention in the 1950's. Eisenhower was the first President briefed on climate change. Scientists knew a lot less back then - than they do now. Climate change began as an explanation of the surface temperature of Venus, which is hotter than Mercury, while much further from the sun. The thick atmosphere traps heat - and it was soon realised, we are thickening our atmosphere too, and even small temperature rises would have big consequences.

It didn't begin with Trump - but worse than this, it won't end with Biden. He's intending to spend about $2 trillion on the wrong technologies, and the wrong approach to climate change. All this wind and solar, pay more have less, stop this, tax that - eeking out our existence forever after won't work.

We need to drill for magma energy on a huge scale. Tap into the virtually limitless heat energy of the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet, and spend that energy prodigiously - to meet our energy needs cleanly, to extract atmospheric carbon and bury it, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, and recycle, while the man on the street carries on - very much as he is.

And here's the thing; given the economic case for magma energy - the right might be convinced of this - but the left are way too certain of their own righteousness. Elements of the left want to undermine capitalism and exercise the authoritarian political control necessary to a "limits to resources" approach. But they're wrong. Malthus was wrong. In fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them.

I was wondering what your take is on the opioid crisis. Were not all concerned hedonistic pleasure seekers?

I think knowledge starts at the fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, so I'm working toward a valid ontology. I have no idea what may or may not ultimately exist. To my mind, it's a wrong end of the microscope question! Provisionally; causality, evolution, intellect - but ultimately, who knows?