No one's replied, and so I will: He's right. The societal situation is quite hopeless. There's a tendency for people to want to believe otherwise, because people seem to think that this world is everything.

For example, Materialists believe that literally.

A famous person once said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

I don't know what all of us did in previous lives, resulting in being born in a world like this, but now that we're here, all there is for us to do, is to live our lives as well as we can, quietly and peacefully staying out of the way of the rulers.

Michael Ossipoff

that spirit will define humankind's reaction to this report, and climate change in general - such that, the window is closed. It has been since the day we decided we could use scientific truth as a tool, without accepting scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of human affairs. — karl stone

You are entirely wrong. First, the spirit that defines your reaction expressed here is despair, and that despair is precisely born of the acceptance of scientific knowledge as the rule of conduct of human affairs. Despair leads to inaction; declaring the window closed helps to close the window.

Nothing prevents us from solving this problem, it is complex, but essentially trivial. A practical matter that we are well equipped in terms of manipulation of the environment to solve, and the proof of it is that we have created the problem by manipulating the environment.

The unscientific rule for the conduct of human affairs is that the situation is always unprecedented, and the old ways are never adequate for thinking about and responding to today's problems. It is time to wake up, time to think anew, time to transform ourselves and our society. We have done it many times before, and we need to do it now. There is no time for despair.

:up:

I beg to differ. The window is closed as a consequence of the nature of humankind. — karl stone

I beg to differ that the window is closed as a consequence of humankind's nature. The window is closed because some human beings have decided that their short-term gain is worth more than our long-term survival.

The humans who control power and policy are focused. The rest of us are a diffuse mass, pointing in every direction. As it says in Bernstein's Mass: Half of the people are drowning, and the other half are swimming in the wrong direction. Half the people are stoned, and the other half are waiting for the next election. (Not far away now on this side of the pond, Karl. How about the desperate last minute vote to stick with Europe after all?)

I find it difficult to imagine how one could think that their short term profits are worth humankind's survival, but that seems to be where the rich and powerful are at.

I basically agree with the opening post.

People generally think of 'the laws' that govern human societies and behavior as if these are things that can just be altered at a moments notice, unlike the laws of nature... I don't think this is justified.

Drastic measures would need to be taken to prevent the worst temperature rises, measures that would harm societies in other ways. That is something very few politicians will have the courage for in democratic societies... and that is if we assume they have the power to take these measures to begin with, which they don't. Because in the end it's a world problem, and there is no 'we' or 'us', just a bunch of competing nations at best.

If we look at the track record of democratic governments solving problems proactively, which is needed to solve this kind of long term problem, then one can only conclude that it's not looking very good. For instance, look at how governments have dealt with saving up to finance for baby-boomers leaving the job-market. It's doesn't get any easier and more certain qua prediction than a demographic pyramid, and there have been times with a lot of financial possibilities.... yet here we are, scrambling to find solutions for the problem.

There is plenty of evidence that suggests that democratic governments are typically very bad at solving long term problems. This is not despairing, nor helping to close the window, this is just being honest about the chances... which is what philosophers and scientists should do in the first place it seems to me. Yes, hope and believing that we can solve the problem are necessary to actually solve the problem, because that's what motivates people into action. But that is not the philosopher or the scientist job, he should look clearly at what is... that is untainted by the 'holy lies' designed to achieve what should be.