I've always found One Truthers scary. :scream: Discussion is pointless. :fear: Shame. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I've always found emojis childish - particularly in a forum such as this. That aside, I'm not a "one truther." I am however arguing that science constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we need government and industry to be responsible to, or we're all going to die.

Otherwise, I don't care what people in general believe in. I have no desire to go around disabusing little old ladies of their belief in God. But we're philosophers - and government and industry similarly, have profound responsibilities that transcend those of the man on the Clapham omnibus.

Or killing everyone!
— karl stone

I note just one last time: no-one has suggested killing. Except you. The human race could be got rid of, if that is our aim, by simply preventing us breeding. There is no need/call for piles of bodies. Straw man. — Pattern-chaser

Really? A strawman? Okay Pattern, tell me - what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? All those who have signed up to the view that people are the problem - aren't going to migrate toward a policy of involuntary extermination? After what they've sacrificed - they won't drop the "V" from VHEM?

I am however arguing that science constitutes a highly valid and coherent understanding of reality - we need government and industry to be responsible to, or we're all going to die. — karl stone

Would this include a detached, objective, impartial, evidence based observation of the human condition, built upon the thousands of years of history we have available to examine? Are human beings part of the reality which we should seek to develop a coherent understanding of?

Okay Pattern, tell me - what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? — karl stone

Nothing. This is a discussion forum. I'm not out to convert anyone to a radical course. This topic asks how to save the world, and I (and others) have offered alternatives that you seem unwilling to consider. So tell me, what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? Nothing, I imagine...? :chin:

I mean to say that adopting my "beliefs" will save the world. I'm not asking - I'm telling. — karl stone

I've always found One Truthers scary. :scream: Discussion is pointless. :fear: Shame. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I'm not a "one truther." — karl stone

Then why are you 'telling, not asking', as you say? :chin: You are not open to comments that don't support your preferred course. You are not open to anything that doesn't support your preferred course. Is this not your One Truth, alternatives to which you will not discuss or consider? That's how it looks.

Then why are you 'telling, not asking', as you say? :chin: You are not open to comments that don't support your preferred course. You are not open to anything that doesn't support your preferred course. Is this not your One Truth, alternatives to which you will not discuss or consider? That's how it looks. — Pattern-chaser

You know very well you are taking that line out of context. You suggested I was asking you and other people generally How to Save the World. Well no, I'm telling you how. I started this thread to discuss my plan. I'm quite happy to discuss other people's ideas on the subject, but it can only be in relation to the ideas I've presented. Don't try making the superiority of my long thought out ideas - a problem because its better than your off the cuff thoughtlets!

Nothing. This is a discussion forum. I'm not out to convert anyone to a radical course. This topic asks how to save the world, and I (and others) have offered alternatives that you seem unwilling to consider. So tell me, what happens when enough people don't sign up for your approach? Nothing, I imagine...? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

No, it doesn't 'ask how to save the world.' It presents a plan. A plan you haven't read.

Would this include a detached, objective, impartial, evidence based observation of the human condition, built upon the thousands of years of history we have available to examine? Are human beings part of the reality which we should seek to develop a coherent understanding of? — Jake

No. Absolutely not. Freedom baby! There's a principle that both limits the legitimate implications of science as truth - and lends science the authority to overrule ideology, and that is existential necessity! i.e. if we don't we'll die!

You suggested I was asking you and other people generally How to Save the World. Well no, I'm telling you how. — karl stone

OK. There is to be no discussion. So why're you wasting time posting here? You should be out there in the world, implementing your plans. The world is in a parlous state. You'd better get to it! Good luck.

OK. There is to be no discussion. So why're you wasting time posting here? You should be out there in the world, implementing your plans. The world is in a parlous state. You'd better get to it! Good luck. — Pattern-chaser

I disagree. I think this is the perfect place to present my ideas - that is, from the lowest possible platform.

No. Absolutely not. Freedom baby! There's a principle that both limits the legitimate implications of science as truth - and lends science the authority to overrule ideology, and that is existential necessity! i.e. if we don't we'll die! — karl stone

Should an engineer building a faster race car take in to account the abilities and limitations of the driver? Would doing so tend to make the car safer? Or is the human driver irrelevant to the subject of auto mechanics?

Should an engineer building a faster race car take in to account the abilities and limitations of the driver? Would doing so tend to make the car safer? Or is the human driver irrelevant to the subject of auto mechanics? — Jake

I kind of understand your argument, but there is a real danger, described in Karl Popper's 1947 treatise 'Enemies of an Open Society' - he describes as "making our representations conform" to science as truth. In other words, the danger that science will become dictatorial of the human condition. No-one wants that. The approach I devised specifically accounts for this potential threat - such that we can claim the functionality of science, to afford the delightfully irrational human condition.

If men shouldn't because they're too violent, should women, who are too timid be trusted with power. I think there has to be a better balance.

Most American workers have been taught to not see class. That 5% of the population owns more wealth than the rest of the population is unbelievable to many Americans. Credit that to pervasive miseducation. — Bitter Crank

Or that basically many Americans understand "class" as "caste". A caste system goes against the idea of America, yet class is different and far more elusive. A genuine well functioning meritocracy does produce classes of people. Class simply sounds too leftist and Americans have problems with word. One example is that sociology sounded too much socialist, hence Americans started to use the term "behaviourism".

I note just one last time: no-one has suggested killing. Except you. The human race could be got rid of, if that is our aim, by simply preventing us breeding. There is no need/call for piles of bodies. Straw man. :roll: — Pattern-chaser

I remember this whimsically hypocrite argument thrown around when talking about what to do with the domesticated animals when everybody is ordered to be a vegan and we get rid of the animals that we farm. It becomes quite absurd when talking about preventing people to have babies.

Historically some autocratic governments, notably China and Singapore, were so afraid of population growth that they enforced dramatic legislation to prevent "out of control" population growth. The reality is that with these policies they just population ageing a far bigger problem than otherwise. Affluence has universally lowered fertility rates and now for example Singapore is desperate about it's women bearing so few babies. This can be seen from the fertility rate in India, which never did much to enforce birth control:



But oh well, anti-natalism and the eradication of the human race as the solution to save the World is a bit tongue in cheek discourse.

My position is just simple common sense, no more complicated than how we routinely limit the powers available to children. — Jake

So who are these ‘adults’ (enlightened folk like yourself?) that will limit the powers available to the ‘children’?

Common sense can be frightening.

So who are these ‘adults’ (enlightened folk like yourself?) that will limit the powers available to the ‘children’? — praxis

If you're interested in this question, you'll try to answer it yourself. If you don't try, you're not interested, and thus it wouldn't be a good use of our time to engage on the subject.

I suspect you're just looking for something you can reject. If true, you can look forward to me saying the above a lot.

If men shouldn't because they're too violent, should women, who are too timid be trusted with power. I think there has to be a better balance. — BrianW

All kinds of arguments like this will go round and round and round to nowhere, until the day the violent men do something to get our attention, like nuke a city or something of that scale. Reason isn't going to work here, so we'll just have to wait for pain to do the job. And so it has probably always been.

So who are these ‘adults’ (enlightened folk like yourself?) that will limit the powers available to the ‘children’?
— praxis

If you're interested in this question, you'll try to answer it yourself. If you don't try, you're not interested, and thus it wouldn't be a good use of our time to engage on the subject.

I suspect you're just looking for something you can reject. If true, you can look forward to me saying the above a lot. — Jake

Your claim was that this is a matter of common sense and yet you appear unable to make any sense out of it.

For children, there are adults who can responsibly handle dangerous substances and technologies and effectively limit the access children have to them for the children's safety. For adults, there is no more mature class that may reliably act as ‘adult-adults’.

I’m not looking for something to reject. I asking who these adult-adults are. This is the lynchpin to your whole notion. Maybe you haven’t thought it through even this far? Maybe you actually do have some idea but fear of further ridicule prevents you from daring to mention it?

Having read through the thread, it seems I've spoken to all the major concepts, in an argument it took me over twenty years to craft - and about which, therefore, I am as certain as it's possible for me to be.

I have begun with the evolutionary nature of life, and discussed the causal relationship that exists on many levels between surviving organisms, and reality. From the structure of DNA, to the physiology, behavior, and intellectual awareness of surviving organisms - the implication drawn, is that all life must be essentially correct to reality, else be rendered extinct.

I have discussed the evolutionary history of humankind, and the transition from a hunter-gatherer tribal way of life to multi-tribal society, leading unto civilization. I have suggested this required inventing/discovering God as an objective authority for law - to overcome the obstacle inherent in conflicting tribal hierarchies.

I have discussed the first formal presentation of scientific method by Galileo - and the reaction of the Church to that discovery - identifying this as the root cause of a mistaken relationship to scientific truth that persists unto this day.

I've sought to explain how this wrongful relationship to science, explains the existential dilemma we find ourselves in, wherein - we have the knowledge and the technology to address climate change, among other issues - but lack the political will, or economic rationale to apply it.

I have argued that, only by correcting our relationship to science - as valid knowledge of reality, to compare to the religious, political and economic ideologies we assume are true, can we hope to avoid being rendered extinct in the near future.

I have acknowledged the difficulties such a conclusion presents to ideologically arranged societies, and suggested we limit the implications of science as truth, to tackling the existentially necessary challenges we face first and foremost. I have identified the key challenge as producing renewable clean energy on a scale sufficient to meet the world's energy needs, plus the ability to produce abundant amounts of fresh water from sea water.

I have discussed at length - the particular technologies I believe should be applied forthwith, and described means to find the money to do so, in such a manner that fossil fuels can be monetized without being extracted and burnt.

I believe that acting upon these ideas will set humankind on a sound footing for a long and glorious future - in the least disruptive manner possible, and I commend my arguments to my species. If the world is to be saved, this is how it can, and must be done. I believe it will work - and no other approach can, because, fundamentally - we must be correct to reality, else we shall be rendered extinct.

the eradication of the human race as the solution to save the World is a bit tongue in cheek discourse — ssu

Are any of the proposals posted here easy ones? No. The problems we have are Big Problems. There are no easy fixes. To save the world, we will have to do things we'd prefer not to do. Whether that means controlling our own numbers, or something else. I do not recommend eradicating the human race, but I confess that I don't know what else to do. How to save the world? Will fuel from hydrogen solve all our problems, even if we can implement it quickly? I suspect not. Not without quite a number of other radical changes. What are these changes, the ones that will/could "save the world"?

I asking who these adult-adults are. — praxis

Who do you think they are?

Please note how you made NO EFFORT to address the question yourself. That's because you're not actually interested in the subject, and are indeed looking for something to reject.

I look forward to your upcoming thread where you attempt to solve the problem which you have identified.

How to save the world? Will fuel from hydrogen solve all our problems, even if we can implement it quickly? I suspect not. Not without quite a number of other radical changes. What are these changes, the ones that will/could "save the world"? — Pattern-chaser

In practical terms, much has already been mentioned here, reduce meat consumption, improve insulation, reverse desertification, seed the oceans, travel less, stabilise and start to reduce the population, etc.

But psychologically, the requirement that would make all these things happen is an end to the divisive religion of Me. Humanity cannot survive divorced from the ecosystem, and the failure of thinking that runs from the op through the thread is to assume that our love of technology - our love of our possessions does not need to be extended to the whole environment. The green world is our body, it is our breath, and an iron lung is no solution.

But psychologically, the requirement that would make all these things happen is an end to the divisive religion of Me. Humanity cannot survive divorced from the ecosystem, and the failure of thinking that runs from the op through the thread is to assume that our love of technology - our love of our possessions does not need to be extended to the whole environment. The green world is our body, it is our breath, and an iron lung is no solution. — unenlightened

Yes! :up: The things we need to do are many and urgent. Although recycling is a Good Thing, it is very far from enough. We must reduce cycling (if you see what I mean :wink: ) to an absolute minimum. We need to find a way of being content with less. We need to consume less. If we can't moderate what we take from the world, we will never 'save the world'. It's on us; we humans need to stop being the problem, and maybe even start working on the solution(s).

I’m asking who these adult-adults are.
— praxis

Who do you think they are?

Please note how you made NO EFFORT to address the question yourself. — Jake

???

I wrote:

For children, there are adults who can responsibly handle dangerous substances and technologies and effectively limit the access children have to them for the children's safety. For adults, there is no more mature class that may reliably act as ‘adult-adults’.

Did you not read this the first time around?

Do you think anyone is falling for your bullcrap?

we must be correct to reality, else we shall be rendered extinct. — karl stone

Do we need to be correct to the reality of human beings?

Did you not read this the first time around? — praxis

Yes, I read your post in it's entirety. You presented a problem. I'm waiting to see if you are interested enough in this problem to try to address it yourself. You're under no obligation to do so, but should you choose not to, I'm not interested in discussing this further with you.

But psychologically, the requirement that would make all these things happen is an end to the divisive religion of Me. — unenlightened

Thank you, I was hoping you might add your insights, your understanding that this is fundamentally a human problem, not just a technical problem.

If the "religion of Me" as you put it could be substantially edited for the better that would presumably make us saner and wiser, and thus more capable of successfully managing more powerful technologies.

This would be an ideal outcome, but so far at least nobody seems to have a credible plan for such a transformation that can be scaled up to the degree necessary, in the shrinking time available. This is what I mean when I asked Karl "Do we need to be correct to the reality of human beings?"

Until such a plan for psychological transformation is available, it seems the only option left is to limit the powers we give to our highly imperfect selves. Thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down our own throats, not evidence we're ready for more vast powers.

If the "religion of Me" as you put it could be substantially edited for the better that would presumably make us saner and wiser, and thus more capable of successfully managing more powerful technologies. — Jake

Unfortunately, the plan to become saner and wiser, is the plan of the insane and unwise. And the plan to limit our powers, requires the powers we wish to limit. Plans and powers are the tools of science, and science works wonderfully well on everything except scientists. So another approach is needed.

Just to be clear, if you want to stop climate change, science is the key; study, plan, experiment, act. But if you want us all to behave better, science is as useless as a sheepdog to herd cats - plans and controls drive folks mad.

"So what's the answer, oh unenlightened one?" I hear you cry. And I do not quite have the wisdom to remain silent. If you look back at this thread, you will see places where it departed from wisdom and sanity, and not much can be done about that. But there is no plan for the posts that come below this one; if they are wise and sane, they will respond to whatever is wise and sane above, and if they are foolish and insane, they will latch onto and amplify whatever is foolish and insane with echo or opposition. In human affairs, a plan does not work, one has to respond.

Here's some good news for the op.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/sep/17/germany-launches-worlds-first-hydrogen-powered-train