At one point or other, it would seem normal to think we would disappear as a species.

To have it be of our own conscious decision making, is sad.

One may not like him, but he's a capable politician. Which is a strange thing to say these days.

but I think it was just cheap journalism. — Wayfarer

I mean, sure. Not being too cynical about it, it's becoming more difficult not to find cheap journalism. Or at least there's much more bad journalism everywhere.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2021/09/13/world-bank-predicts-massive-internal-migration-from-climate-change-by-2050/?sh=49b8333510e4

The report is notable for focussing on internally displaced people, or IDPs - a class of migrants who don't leave their own country and are therefore excluded from many of the protections at least nominally afforded those that cross a border. There were more than 50 million IDPs around the world at the end of 2020, most of them forced from their home regions by violence and conflict, but many of them by natural disasters as well.

The number of IDPs referenced above was the highest on record, but if the World Bank is correct in its predictions, it will be dwarfed in the coming decades. According to the report, by 2050 there could be up to 86 million internal climate migrants in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as 49 million in the East Asia and Pacific region, 40 million in South Asia, 19 million in North Africa, 17 million in Latin America, and 5 million in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

As for the heat info, this article is interesting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/climate-change-humidity/

Scientists have found that Mexico and Central America, the Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan and Southeast Asia are all careening toward this threshold before the end of the century.

Mass migration, serious food shortages, increased natural disasters, job scarcity, not being able to be outside a building for much time at all. If you live in a coastal city or on an island, like I do, you're going to have to move to a place that's already over populated.

The outcomes of climate change are worse than the initial predictions, due to how interconnected the climate is with everything that goes on in Earth. So the announced problems will likely be worse, not better, than what is predicted now.

So all that and likely more.

Yes, but, notice he spoke in English to the press, he could have left had he wanted to. Or said "no comment." Yeah, the press is a nightmare, but Macron knew what he was doing, clearly. Especially in an event of this magnitude.

That's the thing, it still is not set in stone that we will miss the target yet.

If we do, it's very bad news. I don't have children, nor plan to, but they will not be living a good life or even get a sliver of a chance of a decent life due to this disaster.

Thanks for that reply.

Did he explicitly mention Mainlander? The only thing I can recall explicitly is Nietzsche's condemnation of Mainlander's advocating of abstinence and also mentions him in a letter to someone.

I mention it because it's a shame Nietzsche didn't mention him more frequently, maybe Mainlander would be better known by now.

That's quite optimistic you know. At least with us gone, the world has less worries. :joke:

Yeah, that's not with billions of people living in cities who don't know how to survive in the wilderness.

We'll be back something close to baseline in 10,000 years. — frank

If we are still here, I guess. It took about 250 years to get to this point, most of the harm being done in the last few decades, so hopefully we'd have learned not to repeat the same mistakes.

It's still quite hard to absorb the idea that we are willing to destroy most sentient life on Earth, many if not most of our fellow citizens for reasons of power and profit, essentially.

We haven't faced something this big ever, involving the entire world population and the vanishing of countries and cities. We may adapt, but maybe billions will die.

It's going to get very ugly. I hope you're right.

Great article.

These politicians are of low quality recently. Maybe it's a bias, but what they're saying is pretty embarrassing, in this case, the Australian government. Welcome to the club. :cool:

Yeah, that's the gist of the logic. And the solution is really that straightforward. Stupid competition and bragging rights about "growth" and the like will cost us dearly.

But if countries do not sign legally binding treaties, what can be done? Give these types of speeches and empty promises.

Have to keep pressuring these people to change policy, or we're done.

We have no idea.

We can gesture at some vague notions of "symmetry", or "simplicity" or "elegance", and have not a clue why we find things meaningful in the arts.

Sooo... Based on headlines and a few articles read, so far everything has gone exactly as expected.

By the time we get to 2030, we might actually see politicians say "we've totally destroyed the planet, we cannot believe we have failed so miserably, but we have to do something for our children!."

And then we can have a good laugh. And then burn or something.

I remember her and liked her too, seemed to be doing the right things. Shame she still isn't in power, or at least remained in office for a longer period of time. Sure, politics in Australia cannot be as bad as it is in other parts of the world. Yep, my impression is that Australia has done decently well with COVID.



Yeah. It's a problem with the media is owned by so few people, especially those under a Murdoch ideology. I don't know who'd want to attack Australia such that it would need nukes. Military spending, such as it is, is a waste of money.

"Albo", perhaps...? — Banno

I've got to read a good book by some learned reporter or scholar on Australian politics, I used to know a decent amount, for somebody who's very far away from Australia, but finds it fascinating.

I'm seeing that Labour isn't doing that well in the polls. Yet I'm seeing lots of hate for Scotty, politics all over the world is quite messed up these days, I don't get the situation over there.

Yeah, found out about the nickname in the Australia subreddit.

I had heard that the original French submarines weren't nuclear powered, but I haven't gone on to verify.

Well with ANZUS in the way, the so called "threat of China", countries just do what the US says, with very few exceptions. France'll just have to be embarrassed worldwide and mad at Australia, but it is an insult to the French, no doubt.

Hope your next PM will get a better nickname, at least. :joke:

The government, sure. But what about the voters, or is this deal not very relevant to them?

After all, you still get the submarines...

Macron went to the point here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/qk1ezu/macaron_telling_it_like_it_is/

Would it be fair to say that some people there are embarrassed or not really?

[Deleted]

EDIT: Sorry, I didn't even read your OP, just the title. Given what you say, you probably should see a professional. It doesn't look to me as if your insane, you are aware of what's going on, if you weren't, that would be a big red flag. But, yeah, got see professionals here.

If the multiverse is infinite (in terms of quantity of universes) then I could see the case as to why anything would eventually happen, paradoxes aside.

Maybe that's why we are here? That's one answer to the question: we are here because, given enough time, circumstances arise in which intelligent life will arise.

But there's as yet no way to detect other universes.

I would say that Mainlander's vision is one of accepting the futility of the struggle for life, because - in his philosophy - everything that becomes life is just prolonging "suffering", that which is completely non-existent and impotent if the concept of "death" is applied.

His argument does not defend "death" per se, but rather the cessation of all that potentially brings about "pain" or, in terms more metaphysical, "entropy" — Gus Lamarch

Sure. I read the Spanish translation, which is just a small portion of what he wrote, so I cannot opine too strongly on his larger ethical views. As it looks to me currently with my limited understanding, his argument about cessation of suffering is interesting. There's obviously some truth to it, but I think it is an exaggeration too, though I have to read more.

It is no accident that I had to revise some parts of my egoistic philosophy through a pessimistic reading, as many of the arguments presented by Mainlander directly relate to the concept of "individual purpose", something that is intrinsic to Egoism and the "Self".

Nietzsche, Stirner, and others, all applied his - Mainlander's - concept of "Wille zum Tode" - aka, "Will to Death" - in some way or capacity. — Gus Lamarch

I'm particularly drawn to his very interesting and considered critique of Kant and Schopenhauer. I think he makes quite good points, but would love to wrestle with them more.

There's lots of stuff in his work that lends itself to all kinds of modes of thought.

And yeah, it does appear as if Nietzsche was reacting against him, but he only referred to him once or so.

:heart: :heart: :heart:

His translation is coming out next year. There's one made by a an enthusiast in Mainlander's subreddit, which is pretty decent.

But if you already know German, that's very cool.

He's a bit of a downer, but his arguments in metaphysics are extremely interesting.

:up:

First of all: yes, even physicists and other scientists argue about terminology.
Second of all: Why? because ideas are expressed through terms and most philosophers are aware that we must get the vocabulary right in order to get the ideas right... otherwise they wouldn't bother arguing about them. — Artemis

The physicist is not interested in the definition, they are interested in the phenomena. Most physicists I know don't spend time worrying about the definition of energy or gravity.

Words give you an approximation on what experience informs you of, but it's not mathematics.

I'm not actually trying to be dismissive or negative, though of course criticism almost invariably comes across as such. Instead, I'm just stating a fact: if you don't understand the terms, then of course you can't be persuaded by the argument, because you can't understand the argument without understanding the terms. That's --oh the irony!-- both the impediment to you understanding me as well as the core issue I'm trying to explain. C'est la vie.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, as they say... someday, when you've wrapped your head around the basics, let me know! Then I'd be interested to see if you have some better arguments for your critiques of JTB. — Artemis

You're insisting that the terms you use are the ones that are de facto true or should be evident. By that standard, using your own words I could say that:

if you don't understand the terms, then of course you can't be persuaded by the argument, because you can't understand the argument without understanding the terms. — Artemis

So knowledge is whatever you say it is and since I don't agree that that's knowledge, then we can't have a conversation, therefore you are correct.

That's a tautology.

We won't profit anymore here. But thanks for the conversation.

First of all, philosophers spend a great deal of time trying to get their vocabulary right. I don't even understand how you (as someone who seems to have spent some time in academia) would come to dismiss the need for a clear and precise vocabulary in philosophy. Doesn't mean you can't revise the vocabulary, but you absolutely must be clear about what you're saying. — Artemis

I actually disagree with you, no surprise. If these terms are so well defined, why the heck do people argue about them all the time? Do you see physicists arguing about what energy means or what inertia means?

Additionally, an idea or a thought is not the same as a belief. You don't believe all the thoughts and ideas you have. Belief is a kind of thought or idea, namely one you think is true.

You can't both agree that we should be clear whether we are speaking of cats or pandas AND dismiss the need to be clear what we mean by "knowledge" or any other term in philosophy. — Artemis

I didn't say that an idea or though is the same as belief, I said it could be substituted for the term idea or thought. Then we can ask are all my thoughts justified? No. Are my ideas correctly representing the external world? Probably not.

If that's what you say belief is, fine.

I think it's pretty evident that there's a difference between cats, pandas and knowledge.



My thesis was on Galen Strawson and Noam Chomsky and to a lesser extent Tallis. Though I also know a bit about Haack and Schopenhauer.

By focusing on Strawson and Chomsky, I'm already disagreeing with a good portion of how philosophers use certain terms, "reference", "materialism", "representation", etc. That's part of what makes it interesting to me.

I don't have an obligation to entertain you, if you don't find my answers satisfying, that's your problem, not mine.

I don't find your arguments persuasive on this topic.

Go ahead and define these terms as you wish. I've had plenty of interesting conversations here with all kinds of people. But it's not going to please or be instructive to everybody, that's par for the course.

In a possible world we could be ants in the playground of a little kid. In another possible world there is a massive horse that rules the universe.

Therefore being ants in a playground and being subject to the whims of a horse are real. But if these words have no causal influence on ours at all, does it matter?

In other words, if God exists in another possible world what meaningful difference does that entail for us here? I can think of nothing, but perhaps you can tell me what I currently not seeing.

Well put. :up:

Yes, the only substantive issue on this topic is the pace of change - which is quick, granted, given what we used to have, but still not quick enough.

We gotta keep looking (and pushing) at the bright side, yes, cynicism only guarantees the worst possible situation as it just leads either to apathy or to pointless rage, in which one rails against everything while the world keeps humming along.

Yeah. It's not even the greed or corruption -- that's obvious. But do we have to bring the planet and future generations down as well? Can't you find someone else's bribes to take? — Xtrix

Yeah. That's the problem. There's plenty of ways to laugh all the way to the bank - sometimes people fall for dupes, and well, somebody ends up winning.

Not here. This money will be meaningless in too short a time. Shame Democrats couldn't get 4 seats or more in the senate, would've made a difference in the bill.

Now we face the prospects of the damn Republicans tearing the WORLD apart for money. It's bloody difficult when only one party does a little for the people, and the other one nothing but destroy.

Interesting times...

They have, to the extent that they're the dominant regional power. What they've done in HK is quite ugly.

At the same time, the way the US and NATO are escalating situation in Taiwan is truly horrific. Yeah, I'd much prefer Taiwan to be independent. Doesn't matter what I want, it's not worth a nuclear war.

the conversation is not going to go anywhere useful... up until the point of course we recognize our verbal misunderstanding, chuckle a bit about how silly we sounded, and THEN continue talking with a shared vocabulary. — Artemis

We can talk about cats and not pandas, no problem.

And yeah, lots of what we think we know is going to be proven outright wrong or tweaked along the way someday. You seem... more uncomfortable with that notion than you seem to have an actual reasons to dispute it? But discomfort isn't a good reason to discount something. — Artemis

I don't want to have a truth claim to what knowledge is such that if a person disagrees with my definition, I'll then say that they don't have any knowledge, when it is not clear what counts as knowledge or not. You seem to hold that knowledge is true by virtue of its relation to the world as well as it being JTB.

The first is what science seeks to do, always subject to revision, the second is more fruitfully thought of, for me, as claims about mind-dependce vs mind-independence.

I want to say that novelists, historians and philosophers can be very knowledgeable, as they are, without arbitrarily limiting the use of the word "knowledge" to mean, what exists absent us.

That does not mean that some people do not have more knowledge than others, they often do, or that what one counts as knowledge is on shaky grounds as truth claims, this happens frequently.

then that alone doesn't change the validity of our definitions thereof. That is, after all, why languages borrow from another: to fill gaps and needs in their own language. — Artemis

Sure, quite true.

I only know Spanish, besides English, and belief in Spanish is "creencia", almost always used for religious arguments. As far as I'm aware, it's very similar in French too.

I take this to suggest that our use of the word "belief" is an English peculiarity, which might not be the best word to discuss this issues. We could use "ideas" or "thoughts" instead and avoid religious connotations.

Ah, the retreat back to relativism. "You do you" etc. But the slippery slope you mentioned earlier lies precisely IN relativism. Relativism inexorably leads down to nobody being able to make any truth claims or claims at all without getting themselves endlessly riddled in self-contradictions. — Artemis

I very much dislike, and have said so numerous times here almost all French Postmodernists, I think calling Rorty a pragmatist is an insult to Peirce, James and Dewey.

I believe in science, though very much dislike scienticsm.

The "you do you" is meant as a suggestion of practicality, as we don't appear to be convincing each other, though we agree in some areas, such as in fallibalism and illusions.

:cool:

I don't see what is gained by insisting that knowledge must be thought of as so and so. The way I see it if that if we continue insisting on these criteria, we face the prospects of saying "We never had any knowledge of anything ever", because the details will change.

If you want to think of knowledge in this way, because it's useful to you, then by all means keep using it.

I agree with you on fallibalism.

If someone took LSD and told you they saw a pink, invisible unicorn in your house, you can BOTH acknowledge that they TRULY had this mental experience AND that there is no actual pink, invisible unicorn. — Artemis

As stated, no problems here, I agree. Well said. :up:

They do know that they had an experience of a pink, invisible unicorn. They do not know that there IS a pink, invisible unicorn. — Artemis

I think it is more helpful to keep the distinction between mind-independent and mind-depedent reality instead of knowledge. The way you phrase it sounds weird to me.

Yeah, there is a difference between belief and knowledge. Belief is rather English specific, it has strong religious connotations.

:rofl:

Nerds all of you!

Because it isn't true. The earth is not actually the center of the universe and nothing they believe would make it so. — Artemis

We can say that now. Back then they could not. It was the best theory they had for the time and not an unreasonable one at that, to me anyway. What would you expect them to say, "I believe the Earth is the center of the universe, but it is not true."

Sure it does. Once you realize that belief is not the same as knowledge. Belief is just one of the three components of knowledge. It is necessary but not sufficient. — Artemis

I am saying that people who studied alchemy, for whatever purposes, do have knowledge. They are knowledgeable about alchemy. Sure, alchemy is not true of the of the mind-indpendent world, but I wouldn't say that someone who is knowledgeable of alchemy only has beliefs. That sounds too religious-y for me.

Likewise, a reader can know a lot about 1984 by Orwell. But this of course does not mean that 1984 happened mind-independelty.

So which is it? Do you agree or disagree that truth is relative? — Artemis

That's a tough one. Initially I'd say that science aims at mind-independent knowledge, not dependent on our opinions or tastes. At the same time, science is dependent on human beings, who discovered it. So an element of subjectivity remains.

If a person claims to use personal experience as an argument for a truth claim about the world, I wouldn't accept it. But I cannot deny to such people that the experience they had is not true, if they limit it to experience alone, I don't have a problem.

Truths about the world are relative in a very different sense than personal truths.

Was going to recommend Wendy Brown's In The Ruins of Neoliberalism, but looks like I was beat to the punch. — Maw

I didn't look into that one because it did not look inviting for some reason. But if people here think it's good, then it probably is. Thanks.

:up:

Yeah it's pretty ugly. It's often boils down to money and power, not much more.

But it's far from unique to the US. The British, The Spanish, The French, everybody, did the same thing.

Well, then I don't have much reason to believe your statement and neither do you. — Artemis

If that's how you take it, fine.

Why in the world would that be JTB? It's not true and it's not justified. Just because someone believes their beliefs to be true and justified doesn't make it so. — Artemis

Really?!?

You're born in the middle of a tribe, you see this vast ocean of things in the sky. You have no access to telescopes, books or anything else. It surely seems like the Earth is the center of the universe. It surely looks as if stars are diamonds in the sky. It's not unreasonable at all to believe this at that time. It would have been knowledge for them, I don't see why not.

If you don't have any recourse for better data, I don't see why you wouldn't have beliefs you take to be true. What's the alternative? Have no beliefs? That's just not possible.

Yep — Artemis

That makes no sense at all.

Gettier came up with an interesting challenge to naive interpretations of JTB, but the literal title of his paper still doesn't actually dismantle JTB. You'll need to give more arguments than just "well Russell said it too" I'm afraid. — Artemis

Well, you've now introduced the idea of "naivety" to JTB's. Some some beliefs are naïve, hence not really JTB. What beliefs are naïve as opposed to non-naïve?

Which you still haven't thoroughly justified. — Artemis

I'm saying that knowledge does not have a strict definition, you say that it is JTB. I cannot give you a thorough justification of anything.

I can give you more examples: A person born 10,000 years ago has JTB that the Earth is the center of the Universe, that stars are diamonds and that when he dies he'll go back to a supreme being. That's surely JTB and knowledge for that time. We would not call it knowledge today.

What else? I mean, almost everything we thought of prior to enlightenment was false. Things don't go down because that's "the natural order", there are not corpuscles (miniscule concrete solid atoms), Kings do not have divine right, etc., etc.

Back then they were JTB, no question. Today we wouldn't say these things are knowledge. But what about our beliefs now? They could be rendered false in a few decades. So we would have no knowledge.

"But what does it mean to be justified? And that's a sticky question indeed. — Artemis

It is.