I think you are referring to fundamentalist religion. I think it is arguable that most religious people are not fundamentalists. — Janus

No, I am referring to the fact that God-belief is a human psychological delusion, a projection.

For me the problem with what you seem to be proposing is that it would require everyone to be a highly critical thinker. — Janus

What's this? Your argument is that people should be deluded? Have you even thought about this? This is pure resignation. It is also a form of elitism. You are indeed special, so special that you know other people cannot be like you, where you have awareness there they should be consigned to error?

I just don't believe most people have the capacity for that; it is not merely a matter of lack of education. — Janus

In disbelief. ??? You know what?

No, I am referring to the fact that God-belief is a human psychological delusion, a projection. — JerseyFlight

Sure it is, and surely not the only one! Much of human life is projected illusion. Do you believe you are free from it?

What's this? Your argument is that people should be deluded? Have you even thought about this? This is pure resignation. It is also a form of elitism. You are indeed special, so special that you know other people cannot be like you, where you have awareness there they should be consigned to error? — JerseyFlight

No, it is elitist to suppose that you can pontificate as to what is and what is not delusion for others.

In disbelief. ??? You know what? — JerseyFlight

There are natural variations in degrees of intelligence; this can be observed even in animals (obviously across, but also within species). And it is not just a matter of intelligence, either; not everyone has the disposition to become an intellectual, even if they have the native intelligence. You seem naive and idealistic in these matters.

Do you believe you are free from it? — Janus

I believe that all humans, including myself, are tragically prone to error, that is why we make use of intellectual standards.

You are changing the topic here. You said my position only applied to fundamentalism, this is not the case. The fact that you validate my premise means you agree with my position.

No, it is elitist to suppose that you can pontificate as to what is and what is not delusion for others. — Janus

Pardon me, you just agreed with my first premise regarding the God delusion. I reject your self-contradictory subjectivity which states we cannot tell the difference between truth and error. It is not elitist to refute and condemn error. It is elitist to say that people should be fed on a diet of delusion because they do not have the resources for critical thinking. No doubt, there is some truth to this, but not for the fatalistic reasons you seem to portray here. If they lack the resources it is because their social experience was one of poverty.

There are natural variations in degrees of intelligence..." — Janus

The variation you speak of is not a genetic predetermination, it is created by environment and psychological care. By god you are an Elitist! It is thinkers like yourself that weary me most of all, because you have all the benefits of society and you use your own privileged position to construct tyrannical, normative categories, all the while ignoring the material fact that your quality is the result of greater social resources. Every homie born into the projects ought to join me is thrashing your privilege. My family is Native American, genocided and socially alienated. You want to tell me that my father and grandfather were genetically inferior to you? Wrong cowboy, they didn't have your social privileges!

You seem naive and idealistic in these matters. — Janus

Where did you grow up?
Did you have both parents?
Were they home or gone most of the time?
Did they have any substance use dependence?
Were you abused?
Did you face adversity in your social life?
What color is your skin?
Were you born into a working house family or inherited wealth?
Did you have quality mentors?
Did you have quality reading material?
Did you have a nutrient rich diet?
Did you suffer any trauma in the development of your brain?
Was your community experience one of calm or anxiety?

You are a material being, and ALL of your quality originates not from yourself but from your experience of collective community.

I don't play your abstract, idealistic privilege that seeks to separate its quality from every material fact that accounts for its being.

If you have intelligence it's not because you are special, it's because you are lucky.

I don’t think it is possible for a a group as large as 7 billion people to agree that such proactive measures are necessary. — xraymike79

Alas, I don't think it is possible for a group as small as 1000 or maybe 100 to not only see the necessity of proactive measures, but to actually implement the proactive measures in advance of dire consequences.

We don't seem to be able to see possible or probable disasters 25, 50, or 100 years in the future and actually do something about it in the present time. It's less a moral failing (which virtue could overcome) and more a failure of our species' nature, which we may have the wherewithal to overcome.

Apart from that, we have (most likely) started the unstoppable cascade of events which will lead to ever-worsening conditions. EVEN IF we 8 billion people, woke up and decided to start acting right now, it would be very hard work to prevent the cascade.

I conclude that we are totally screwed.

EVEN IF we 8 billion people, woke up and decided to start acting right now, it would be very hard work to prevent the cascade. I conclude that we are totally screwed. — Bitter Crank

This brings us to interesting questions. What happens to philosophy in light of this awareness? How should a wise person proceed in light of such negativity? If these premises are correct then philosophy must take a new course, it must revise itself in the consciousness, of what appears to be, the most profound negation of being.

Now I'm unexpectedly old, and humanity is if anything more fuck-witted than back in the 60's. Sorry kids, I tried to live green, I didn't go flying, or buy cars, I stopped eating meat. I preached and practiced as best I could. Nobody was listening and not many are still. — unenlightened

I stopped the procreational process in my lineage. That's the best I could do for the world. I hope many others will take my lead.

I reject your self-contradictory subjectivity which states we cannot tell the difference between truth and error. — JerseyFlight

You misunderstand religion if you think it is a matter of truth or falsity, of being correct or being mistaken.

I believe that all humans, including myself, are tragically prone to error, that is why we make use of intellectual standards. — JerseyFlight

Right and who decides the standards?

You are changing the topic here. You said my position only applied to fundamentalism, this is not the case. The fact that you validate my premise means you agree with my position. — JerseyFlight

No you are failing to make the crucial distinction between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist religion. The former consists in quasi-empiricist reification of spiritual metaphors. Of course fundamentalism is erroneous, consisting as it does in errors of misplaced concreteness.

It is elitist to say that people should be fed on a diet of delusion because they do not have the resources for critical thinking. No doubt, there is some truth to this, but not for the fatalistic reasons you seem to portray here. If they lack the resources it is because their social experience was one of poverty. — JerseyFlight

It would be elitist if I had said that, but I haven't. You seem to be highly skilled at imputing claims to others, which they have not made. It's much easier to argue against a position you have distorted to suit your own refutations. If you deny that there is any natural variation in intelligence in humans and other "higher" species, then I can only wonder where you have been living. It is not an elitist claim, but merely a realist observation.

The variation you speak of is not a genetic predetermination, it is created by environment and psychological care. — JerseyFlight

It is not a matter of "either/ or" but "both/ and". Nature and human life are not as simplistic as you would seem to like to paint them.

You are a material being, and ALL of your quality originates not from yourself but from your experience of collective community.

I don't play your abstract, idealistic privilege that seeks to separate its quality from every material fact that accounts for its being.

If you have intelligence it's not because you are special, it's because you are lucky. — JerseyFlight

I don't deny any of this except for you claim that I am being idealistic. The reverse is true, it is you being idealistic if you think that there are no such things as material differences between people. Of course we are all material beings, part of nature, and we are naturally variant in our gifts, both mental, emotional and physical. Of course those gifts can be amplified, or suppressed by our upbringing, and enculturation; where have I denied that?

I haven't said that anyone ought to be treated any differently on account of their natural gifts, though, and if I had that would be elitist. I uphold the idea that we should all be equal before the law, and should all have equal opportunities for education. Of course the possession of intelligence is not a reason for any special treatment, but talented individuals are special insofar as their natural gifts exceed the average, and this is the same in the visual arts, in music, in sports, in regard to physical strength and mental acuity. Whether those gifts are cultivated and developed is an entirely different matter.

You come across as an ideologue, and the last thing humanity needs is more of those, in my opinion. You also come across as an elitist, insofar as you talk down to others and don't listen to what they are saying to you.

No you are failing to make the crucial distinction between fundamentalist — Janus

This delusion is not confined to fundamentalism. If you believe in the existence of unicorns it doesn't matter whether you classify the belief as extreme or moderate, it is false. The status of delusion doesn't change just because you say "the former consists in quasi-empiricist reification of spiritual metaphors." I am not surprised just disappointed that you think delusion is somehow more preferable, just because it is not classified as fundamentalist delusion.

It would be elitist if I had said that, but I haven't. — Janus

---->

"...it would require everyone to be a highly critical thinker. I just don't believe most people have the capacity for that..."[/quote]

Then, I guess I fail to understand what you are advocating as an alternative? I saw you mention Spinoza believing that people had to have religion because they were too stupid for reason. (This is a paraphrase, I don't remember your exact wording). The direction and implication of what you are saying is that delusion is okay because society makes it hard for people to obtain skills in critical thinking. Of course you would never state your position this way because it makes it obvious that the position is absurd.

If you deny that there is any natural variation in intelligence..." — Janus

That is, what accounts for intelligence? Why do you have it, for example, while millions of people born into abject poverty don't? Please do explain.

I deny that the natural variation you speak of is what accounts for the quality in intelligence.

It is not a matter of "either/ or" but "both/ and". — Janus

I agree with this, but this is not an equivalence. Environment, psychological as well as physical, is the dominant feature of determinism when it comes to the health of human beings.

Nature and human life are not as simplistic as you would seem to like to paint them. — Janus

I don't think nature is simple, but I also don't think every detail of its complexity comprises relevance.

think that there are no such things as material differences between people. — Janus

You mean material advantage makes the difference? Yes, I agree.

we are naturally variant in our gifts — Janus

Gifts? You mean superior genes? Even so this doesn't matter, if you gave any human the greatest genetic advantage, if his genes are subjected to an impoverished environment, they will yield no "gifts." You are a body. Your mind is material. Suffering impoverishment in these areas will destroy your intellectual qualities and any other so-called "gifts" you might have. Further, the passing on of genes is itself based on the qualitative historical experience of your parents and grandparents. You make it sound like God is dishing out magic genes to people, as opposed to them being shaped by a material, historical process.

I haven't said that anyone ought to be treated any differently on account of their natural gifts, though, and if I had that would be elitist. — Janus

No, that would be a direct form of elitism, you have offered a sly, backdoor, I'm better than you approach because I have a "natural variant of gifts." (It's hard to hold my tongue here, I despise intellectuals like yourself). Ignorantly you go about leading with your social privilege, discoursing from it as though the world were divided in terms of it, all the while oblivious to the fact that you are simply luckier. It's hard to respect, and no philosopher should be naive in this sense. Men like you crushed people like my grandfather and father, pounded them into dust with your privilege.

talented individuals are special insofar as their natural gifts exceed the average, and this is the same in the visual arts, in music, in sports, in regard to physical strength and mental acuity. — Janus

More disbelief and a pain in holding my tongue. There is no such thing as a "natural gift," as you speak of it here. Bobby Fisher had to practice chess for 10,000 hours to become a master. Beethoven made thousands of corrections to his symphonies. The development of mastery in any field presupposes a vital chain of material resources, opportunity, historical development, remove these and your category doesn't exist!

Whether those gifts are cultivated and developed is an entirely different matter. — Janus

Wrong. What you are saying here would then mean, a person's skill is a matter of genetic inheritance. False. Subtract the material and you have nothing left but an empty category. This is the exact opposite of idealism!

it must revise itself in the consciousness, of what appears to be, the most profound negation of being. — JerseyFlight

Any one alive to the possibility that we may be bringing about our final act and scenes on the world's stage, must revise their consciousness to account for not only their own death, but the death of the human enterprise. It is a grievous thought.

The death of the human enterprise will not be as swift as a heart attack; it will likely be slow in the manner of degenerative diseases, so there may be several generations of thinkers whose reality will be dominated by the certainty of our species demise. There will be a steadily deteriorating situation at the end of which large scale Civilization will cease, and our smaller scale communal lives fall apart.

Grim.

I schizophrenically view the future as a certain end to the human enterprise on the one hand, and on the other hand hold out for a future in which human kind, and as many other species as possible, pull through to a bright and long future. The former seems inevitable and the latter seems impossible.

So very well said, though tragic. It's quite hard to fight off hedonism from this vantage.

In that dimension of adaption we have no choice.

I think what fdrake had in mind with his comment is something like 'you have to work within the system to live a successful life' where "successful life" means something like contributing to the overall betterment of human life. — Janus

Indeed, I agree with you although I wonder if there'll be any avenues for positive change in a system that seems specifically designed to cause catastrophes. Quite possibly, the system isn't about energy per se but actually about cheap energy. If it's all got do with money, I see a silver lining. Greed got us into this mess, greed will get us out of it.

It's quite hard to fight off hedonism from this vantage. — JerseyFlight

Is it? I find that the end of the world pretty much quashes my desire for pleasure.

By hedonism I am not necessarily referring to a philosophy of pleasure, I am referring to the pursuit of subjectivity over that of social responsibility.

In that dimension of adaption we have no choice.

I think what fdrake had in mind with his comment is something like 'you have to work within the system to live a successful life' where "successful life" means something like contributing to the overall betterment of human life — Janus

When I said "who's not dying?" I meant that death itself could be an adaptive response. Lebensraum is at a premium - has been, is, always will be. Dying then is an act that frees up precious living space for others with the added advantage of creating a new population that's better equipped to tackle changes in the environment, changes that, for all we know, would've been fatal for the older generation.

There is no such thing as a "natural gift," as you speak of it here. — JerseyFlight

It's not a question of how I'm speaking of it; it's very straightforward, it's just natural variation. Are you seriously claiming that some people are not more naturally talented than others in the various fields of human endeavor? If you genuinely believe that, then I can only conclude that you are too deluded to bother responding to further.

It seems to me you won't get far on this site, seeing as how you are apparently just another proselytizer, who would rather distort what your interlocutors say, because engaging with what they are actually saying would make it too difficult to for you to deal with.

If you can't see the obvious pattern emerging in your interactions that, along with your tendency to distort the words of others and to very quickly resort to ad hominem attacks, seems to indicate that despite your apparent pretensions to be open-mindedly seeking truth, you are actually a closed-minded ideologue, and thus also a self-deluding hypocrite.

I think it's time for a reality-check, dude.

It's not a question of how I'm speaking of it; it's very straightforward, it's just natural variation. Are you seriously claiming that some people are not more naturally talented than others in the various fields of human endeavor? — Janus

Out of courtesy and respect for the discourse I was trying to simply presume your terms. This is often the more mature way to discourse. Asking for a justification of every last term, though one can do it, is really the mark of a novice dialectician. However, you have forced the issue here, so you must explain what you mean by, "natural variation," that some people are "more naturally talented?"

What I suspect is that you are equivocating. A natural variation can only mean that a person has some kind of genetic advantage, but once again, this genetic advantage is not a "natural variation" in any magic sense, genes form through historical process, further, the existence of talent is a matter of privileged conditions. I have already refuted what you say, 'Subtract the material and you have nothing left but an empty category.' You can be given all the natural advantage in the world, but if you pass through an impoverished environment your advantage will be negated. Would you rather have the greatest genetic, natural advantage and grow up in Syria, or have one that is only moderate and grow up in wealth and the stability of a healthy home and society? The answer is obvious, and it refutes your emphasis on "natural talent."

What you are trying to do is argue with abstract, empty categories, when I call you out and demand that you substantiate the category, we find that material reality doesn't match up with the presumptions of your ideals. Talent is not an attribute without a history, remove the concrete and it doesn't exist. (There is no Michael Jordan without the basketball court and hoop he had access to as a boy).

I think it's time for a reality-check, dude. — Janus

No, I will not play by your privileged rules. Like I said, it was people like you, specifically with this kind of self-righteous attitude of superiority, that crushed people like my grandfather and father. You need to be knocked off your perch, all the social benefits you received from society, that's what accounts for your quality, remove this and there is nothing left.

I have not been attacking you personally but drawing out brutal, material contradictions of your idealist position.

you are too deluded — Janus

you are apparently just another proselytizer, who would rather distort what your interlocutors — Janus

your tendency to distort the words — Janus

despite your apparent pretensions — Janus

you are actually a closed-minded ideologue, and thus also a self-deluding hypocrite. — Janus

Yes, this is how privilege responds and usually works. This kind of authoritarian reply would have crushed my grandfather and father, because they could not defend themselves from people like you. Not I little man. I am calling out your privilege and will continue to do so. It signifies what is wrong with so many intellectuals. You are not alone in this, it is the common disposition.

However, you have forced the issue here, so you must explain what you mean by, "natural variation," that some people are "more naturally talented?" — JerseyFlight

I am simply stating the obvious fact that people and other animals are born with varying potentialities and attributes.

I haven't anywhere denied that natural abilities can be fostered or suppressed by cultural conditions. And yet it seems that is what you would like to impute to me.

Here's an example:

Talent is not an attribute without a history, remove the concrete and it doesn't exist. (There is no Michael Jordan without the basketball court and hoop he had access to as a boy). — JerseyFlight

I haven't anywhere denied that talents have histories and rely on concrete circumstances to reach fruition. That is all just bleeding obvious, and is the same for everything. For example the seed will not grow into a tree unless the conditions are right.

Michael Jordan is a tall, powerfully constituted athletic type of person, and would be so even if he never played basketball. If he hadn't had that opportunity he might have excelled in some other field, or he might have become a drug addict, alcoholic or criminal. Wherever he might have done in counterfactual circumstances, the fact of his inherent physical attributes remains.

So, you don't seem to actually be saying anything of substance; that is what I am waiting to hear, some new insight.

No, I will not play by your privileged rules. Like I said, it was people like you, specifically with this kind of self-righteous attitude of superiority, that crushed people like my grandfather and father. You need to be knocked off your perch, all the social benefits you received from society, that's what accounts for your quality, remove this and there is nothing left. — JerseyFlight

And here it is again! The presumptuous bullshit! I am not speaking about, or from privilege. You know nothing about me or my life. You don't know what sex I am, how old I am, what I look like, or what I do for a living.

I have not been attacking you personally but drawing out brutal, material contradictions of your idealist position. — JerseyFlight

Quote one example of anything I have said that would reasonably count as a "brutal, material contradiction" or show that my "position" is "idealist".

It's true that I responded to you with some ad hominen remarks; but it was not me that started down that path in this "conversation"; I was merely giving like for like. I also think my ad hominem remarks are much more reasonable and founded upon what you have actually been saying than yours are.

Now if you want to continue then quote something I have actually said, and tell me just what you think is wrong with it, without distorting it or reading into it what suits only your polemic purposes.

I am simply stating the obvious — Janus

No you are emphasizing a vague category to the detriment of concrete reality.

Michael Jordan is a tall, powerfully constituted athletic type of person — Janus

These are not talents now are they? These are physical attributes. And without the right resources and environment these would not only lead to nothing, but they wouldn't' even exist! Refuted, again.

You know nothing about me or my life. — Janus

I know what you have asserted about natural talent and the like, and it's false. You tried to claim that talent is an attribute that pops into existence as a magical genetic structure. This is false. Even the genes you are referencing are themselves contingent on qualitative historical development. The fact that you tried to posit this category, that some people are just magically superior to others, this is why you have been charged with elitism and privilege, not because I know the details of your life, but because you are arguing for privilege!

Quote one example of anything I have said that would reasonably count as a "brutal, material contradiction" or show that my "position" is "idealist". — Janus

"...it would require everyone to be a highly critical thinker. I just don't believe most people have the capacity for that..."*

And you do? Why?

Where did you grow up?
Did you have both parents?
Were they home or gone most of the time?
Did they have any substance use dependence?
Were you abused?
Did you face adversity in your social life?
What color is your skin?
Were you born into a working house family or inherited wealth?
Did you have quality mentors?
Did you have quality reading material?
Did you have a nutrient rich diet?
Did you suffer any trauma in the development of your brain?
Was your community experience one of calm or anxiety?

*There is another way to approach this, "most" does not mean "all," which means "some" people do have this capacity, the question is why? You tried to posit genetic inheritance as the reason, this is false, so I repeat myself: 'You are a material being, and ALL of your quality originates not from yourself but from your experience of collective community.'

You tried to claim that talent is an attribute that pops into existence as a magical genetic structure. — JerseyFlight

No I didn't; I haven't said anything about "magical genetic structure" or attributes "popping into existence"; those words are yours and you are trying very hard to impute them to me. This is intellectually dishonest.

I said that the physical attributes which enable talents of various kinds are inherent. Someone who is short will be unlikely to become a great basketball player. Someone who is tall and very lanky will be unlikely to become a great gymnast or weightlifter. Etc, etc...

It's just ridiculous to say that there are not inherent physical (including brain) attributes which contribute to or detract from the likelihood that people will excel at the various endeavours. And of course I have acknowledged that the right upbringing, luck in finding mentors, etc, etc. in other words environmental, social and cultural factors contribute to the likelihood that someone will excel.

And you do? Why? — JerseyFlight

I don't know; I've just always been interested in ideas since early teens, but I come from a background most would consider lacking in much culture. I'm not even claiming to be a thinker on the highest level in any case. I'm just an amateur interested in philosophy like most of the folk on this forum. I'm actually something of a dilettante.

I'm not going to tell you all the details of my background, but I will tell you I had a poor relationship with my father all my life, ran away from home twice, I was rebellious and got into hallucinogenic drugs and philosophy, mostly Eastern but some Western too (Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) in the last two years of high school, came last in the year in the final exams, did not hold a steady job, but did casual work like gardening for people, tree-lopping, taxi-driving and cleaning and I often hitchhiked around the state I live in and an adjacent state, lived in the bush from time to time, until I was about 27, and then started my own business as a builder and landscape designer which I carried on for about 38 years.

During that time I also pursued interests which included drawing and painting (I dropped out of art school 3 times), have been writing and reading poetry and philosophy since I was 16, and also playing around with music. Everything I own I earned myself; I have never been a full-time employee. My father ran a motor repair business and my mother was a housewife.

The point is that there is such variation among people that it is impossible to predict whether natural talents will be developed by looking just at background. You also have to possess the attributes in the first place order to become good at anything. For another example, not every horse can become a champion no matter how much training they receive.

So, I can't see where you have refuted anything at all I have said. You have created strawmen and imagined that you have refuted those. That is all you have managed to do.

not every horse can become a champion no matter how much training they receive. — Janus

Ignorance needs to die. When horses get the proper training they fluctuation on and off from winning. The horses that do not get the proper training would not stand a chance against those who do.

"New scientific research shows that environmental influences can actually affect whether and how genes are expressed. In fact, scientists have discovered that early experiences can determine how genes are turned on and off and even whether some are expressed at all. Thus, the old ideas that genes are “set in stone” or that they alone determine development have been disproven."

Source: https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/

I think what fdrake had in mind with his comment is something like 'you have to work within the system to live a successful life' where "successful life" means something like contributing to the overall betterment of human life. — Janus

As with any suggestive one liner, I meant a few things by it. In the context of the plausible threat of collapse of our civilisation in the next 100 years, and the by-and-large institutional indifference to that risk.

(1) If you're a reasonable human being like Greta Thunberg, and you're simultaneously attuned to the severity the risk and the indifference towards it (and the fact that indifference makes it worse), you'll feel like you're strapped to tracks and there's an oncoming train in the distance. Worse, people around you act like the train doesn't exist despite driving it. Worse still, the more responsibility someone has to mitigate the risk, the more they seem invested in pretending it doesn't exist. If that doesn't make you extremely uncomfortable, if not peaking in moments of outright despair, then I dunno who taught you how to feel things. That's a lot of cognitive dissonance to shoulder.

(2) People feel on a gut level that it's really a risk but don't wanna feel helpless and complicit at the same time, so they turn the climate issue into an act of emotional homeostasis. Making it about their feelings rather than the facts. This is an avoidance of cognitive dissonance through either replacing the enormity of the problem with a smaller one (an alluring cognitive bias accentuated by individual centric ideology), externalising the threat (climate change "doomsayers", "apocalypse cult" blah blah you know the drill). Be that through dissonance reducing individual level consumption strategies (which are benign but largely as effective as prayer), or treating those who have it on their mind like dirt, or forgetting it ever exists and going on with life.

So you can adapt to the threat by absolving yourself of responsibility through heavy emotional investment in largely ineffective strategies and Kantian prayers, or minimising the threat by shooting its messengers, or you can ignore it. All three bottom out in adjusted coping strategies for the emotional impact of the problem that let you live as normal, but are completely unadjusted for mitigating the risk of collapse. If you can behave as if everything is normal and shut yourself off from the burning skylines, rising tides, floods, record weather every year and the beginning of climate change induced diaspora... It doesn't exist. Clap your hands if you believe!

But indeed, that is what is required of you to behave normally in response to the threat. To live life as if it doesn't exist. And if you're unfortunate enough of an individual to take systemic risks seriously - sucks for you I guess? See you at the next largely ineffective collective symbolic-political act.

As with any suggestive one liner, I meant a few things by it. In the context of the plausible threat of collapse of our civilisation in the next 100 years, and the by-and-large institutional indifference to that risk. — fdrake

If I was cynical, I'd say that instead of the institutional indifference being the main culprit, at least in some, perhaps even many, cases, it is instead active complicity with those who really don't care, and who see life just as a profiteering game where the only aim is to win at all costs.

I can relate to Thunberg, and her outrage; it is outrageous that we seem to be, by and large, governed by reptiles. And the common person seems to be sleepwalking into catastrophe. It is outrageous that the people could overthrow or undermine the elites with ease if only they had the intelligence and collective will, but that this seems impossible to bring about.

I also think your characterization of the emo response is apt.

And then, as you say, we can just ignore it and live day to day. None of these are coping strategies, as you note, fitted to purpose, if the purpose is the preservation of civilization.

There is also (at least) one other category of copers; those who opt for a return to rural life; to the sense of community which has been mostly lost in the cities. Those who prepare for a long (hopefully!) decline, a slow return to a predominately sustainable agrarian life, and (hopefully again) a whole new kind of civilization.

Who knows what we'll be able to retain and what will be lost (beyond the obvious things which depend entirely on fossil fuel use)? Will medical science and technology be able to continue to develop for example?

One estimate I have come across is that organic framing (which must return and completely displace industrial framing if we, and many other species and habitats are to survive) can sustain only about 200,000,000 people. If this is right then there must be a drastic reduction of population over the next 50 years if we are to avoid total collapse of our ecosystems.

How will this come about? Will it be the result of increasing poverty, resource depletion, famine and pandemics we cannot control or will we engineer it out of desperation? This seems to be the question that very few people even want to entertain, let alone seriously think about. It's simply unacceptable!

Personally I don't see how civilization, as it currently exists (or until recently has existed; global and prosperous for many with prosperity growing) is possible to sustain, given that it has been a one-off bonanza of growth enabled by fossil fuels. De-growth now seems inevitable as resources wane.

So, I see the problem as not just being that we are being farmed by financial elites, or that there is institutional indifference, or lack of coordinated thought and action within the masses, but that no one knows what could be done, because all alternatives seem intolerable, and we simply don't know what would work anyway. We have heavily invested in a particular trajectory of growth, and no one knows which brake to apply, because there are too many brakes to choose from, and none of them palatable.

None of this addresses the obvious fact that there is inherent individual variation when it comes to physical and mental abilities. If you deny that then I can only conclude that you are deluded, in a state of denial perhaps, because you can't accept the fact that life is not always fair.

Anyway your responses have been so inapt and disengaged that I'm done with this conversation.

Who knows what we'll be able to retain and what will be lost (beyond the obvious things which depend entirely on fossil fuel use)? Will medical science and technology be able to continue to develop for example? — Janus

The extremely annoying thing is that greening production of electricity works - solar and wind are just as efficient now, electric trains and buses and cars are a thing (though large passenger aeroplanes still look a while off); stuff of that size being feasible makes it agriculture at scale feasible I think. Most petrochemicals are recyclable - though under 10% are recycled by our current production strategies.

One estimate I have come across is that organic framing (which must return and completely displace industrial framing if we, and many other species and habitats are to survive) can sustain only about 200,000,000 people. If this is right then there must be a drastic reduction of population over the next 50 years if we are to avoid total collapse of our ecosystems. — Janus

Sustainable agriculture looks workable at scale? Long term resources except electricity are finite, though.

Personally I don't see how civilization, as it currently exists (or until recently has existed; global and prosperous for many with prosperity growing) is possible to sustain, given that it has been a one-off bonanza of growth enabled by fossil fuels. De-growth now seems inevitable as resources wane. — Janus

I don't think it's inevitable, it's a question of coordination and those with power taking the problem seriously (or being forced to take it seriously :P). Or rather, taking it seriously and realising the consequences, the story of Margaret Thatcher is instructive here. A passionate advocate for climate change transformation on a global scale in the 1990's based on her understanding of chemistry , she switched to a climate change denier based on the partisan output of free-market think tanks. She's a microcosm of the pattern. Our liberty now, your death later!

Edit: I want to clarify that I can imagine a capitalism that is actually green, it just seems unlikely to emerge.

The extremely annoying thing is that greening production of electricity works - solar and wind are just as efficient now, electric trains and buses and cars are a thing (though large passenger aeroplanes still look a while off); stuff of that size being feasible makes it agriculture at scale feasible I think. Most petrochemicals are recyclable - though under 10% are recycled by our current production strategies. — fdrake

I don't pretend to be an authority on this, but from what I've read, wind and solar, due to their intermittency and fluctuating energy production require some form of so-called "base load", which can be quickly ramped up and down, to stabilize the grid. Apparently coal is not great for this, and neither is nuclear. Natural gas is better, but it, although better than coal, is still far from carbon neutral.

When it come to wind turbines there are those who claim that if all the energy taken to mine, transport and process the materials they are constructed form, install them, maintain them, deconstruct them and dispose of the waste is taken into account, they are not carbon neutral by any means.

Now I don't know if this is true; such views may be politically motivated, but views to the contrary may also be politically motivated. The truth in these disputes is not so easy to discern, apparently even for the experts, let alone for us amateurs.

Sustainable agriculture looks workable at scale? Long term resources except electricity are finite, though. — fdrake

I'll be honest and admit I didn't have the time to read that article thoroughly. I would love it if it were true that organic farming can be as productive per hectare as industrial agriculture. But, even if it were, would we not still be reliant on fossil fuels for the large-scale transportation required to feed the global population?

Electric vehicles are a long way from being able to travel great distances without recharging, and recharging relies upon electricity produced predominately by fossil fuels. Since at every step due to entropy energy is lost, it would seem that at the moment running electric vehicles would be less green than running them directly on fossil fuels, and particularly so since coal generated power is less "carbon-friendly" than oil-power, as far as I am aware.

Complex infrastructure takes many decades to transition to new technologies, and I'm not convinced that there are enough of the minerals and rare earth metals that are required for batteries to make the transition in any case, and even if there were, all that extra mining is currently being done with machinery that runs on fossil fuels, as far as I am aware.

I would love to be shown to be wrong about all this. I may well be wrong, and what I say is based just on the casual reading I have done. I have searched, but am yet to find anything compelling to convince me otherwise.

I find myself increasingly incline towards misanthropy. It's the form of Humanism that realises that all we have is each other, then looks around in despair. — Banno

:up:

One of the profound epiphanies that Covid gave us is that people will claim to believe anything, no matter how utterly, insanely stupid, in order to minimise the impact of social responsibility on their personal lives. In the UK, a significant proportion of people have taken to coughing and spitting on anyone who asks them to wear face masks or observe social distancing. The justification is that Covid is a hoax designed to, I don't know, create a market for face masks or something. Given the economic and political harm Covid inevitably inflicted, it's a mind-boggingly stupid idea that cannot stand on its own merits. It is adopted because of its utility, not it's sanity.

This does not bode well for environmental conscientiousness. Currently, what environmental measures we have in place are minimal, hypocritical and enforced punitively. I have little doubt now that any serious attempt to reverse climate change would be interpreted as an equally insane conspiracy as soon as it impacted people's daily lives. They'd probably hold fossil fuel burning parties in protest. :o

Kenosha Kid, I'd like to add to that, that while the idea itself from the example you gave may be stupid, I can understand the general sentiment behind it. People have been lied to continuously in order to get them to sacrifice for the greater good, only to learn that the greater good usually meant some select group.

So rather than stupidity, it seem to me it's more a case of wilful defiance. There is no trust whatsoever in what authorities say, and a sense of living in a world that is only out to get you... which has led to a deep cynicism and instinctive reactions to try to repel manipulation.

This is I think maybe the biggest problem we have, because it leads to a lack of collective agency.... and without that you can't even begin to try to implement any sort of societal change.

Kenosha Kid, I'd like to add to that, that while the idea itself from the example you gave may be stupid, I can understand the general sentiment behind it. People have been lied to continuously in order to get them to sacrifice for the greater good, only to learn that the greater good usually meant some select group.

So rather than stupidity, it seem to me it's more a case of wilful defiance. There is no trust whatsoever in what authorities say, and a sense of living in a world that is only out to get you... which has led to a deep cynicism and instinctive reactions to try to repel manipulation. — ChatteringMonkey

My comment was not against accusing governments of bad faith generally. It was pretty clear to me that Iraq had nothing to do with national security or human rights, and everything to do with oil, for instance. I don't think this is a "stupid" accusation on the grounds that the governments involved denied it; on the contrary one can see why the US would want to implement a friendly Iraq government and one can see why they'd like about it. And it had precedent.

This is not an excuse for insane conspiracy theory. The idea that world governments all over are harming their own economies and political credit for an arbitrary exercise in control is not only unprecedented, it is outright stupid

There is a difference.

Yes there is a difference if you look at it from the perspective of being true or sensible or whatever... all I'm saying is that I don't think that is what motivates those people holding those ideas. They want to be defiant (because the feel they have been lied to), those beliefs are just a rationalisation or post hoc justification for their defiance.