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. — unenlightened

If you look at the whole discourse about the future of the environment about the subject during the last 40 years, same is true.

The fact is that proclaiming imminent doom and an oncoming eco-catastrophy sells in the media and is totally accepted and basically encouraged as to "get people to notice the problems and active". In 1970 George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University had predicted that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Another prominent American academician Paul Ehrlich projected at the same time that population growth would lead to the death rate increasing "until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.” Many of the important raw materials, copper, sinc, tin, oil have been forcasted to have run out far before than now. There is a multitude of these kind of dire warnings given to us. So it's not only those believing the anti-climate change lobby that might be a little sceptic of the impending doom-scenario. Problems, yes, disaster, perhaps not.

Still fatalism and scare tactics work far better than views that could be interpreted as a "Cornucopian" view of future that seems to underrate the problems. This is more because of an ideological zeal than trying to be as realistic as possible.

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. — Jake

It's not a problem, it's a correction. There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is and your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact is both intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, pathetic.

The fact is that proclaiming imminent doom and an oncoming eco-catastrophy sells in the media and is totally accepted and basically encouraged as to "get people to notice the problems and active". In 1970 George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University had predicted that “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — ssu

To make an error of prediction is not a departure from wisdom and sanity. We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial.

Karl seems to feel that the human guidance system for the global technological machine can be successfully updated by some vague method that he can't seem to articulate beyond repeating "science as truth". Such vagueness seems acceptable to Karl, so he is up for full speed ahead on further construction of the global technological machine. — Jake

Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed (except by dire circumstances beyond human control of course), and so @karl stone is right to propose that the only hope for humanity's future lies in technological redirection to more sustainable technologies.

Karl has been humble enough to admit that what he proposes may not be the best solution; in stark contrast you have been arrogant enough to attempt to deflect the whole debate away from considering what should be done to most effectively manage economic, energy and mineral resources, to repeating a mantra of irrelevant anti-intellectualist dogma.

To make an error of prediction is not a departure from wisdom and sanity. We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial. — unenlightened

But to say that civilization will end in 15 or 30 years? Really? Just a prediction error on timing? That was nearly 50 years ago, actually. (And do note the timetable, you don't get publicity for estimates about 50 to 100 years or more, it has to be something now, immediately.)

These kind of alarmist predictions do not just activate people (which I assume is the intention), but also spread fatalism and the typical "everything will be worse in the future" attitude. And if you are younger and confronted with them the first time, you might think the end is near. Now if you have lived for longer and noticed how this discourse of imminent catastrophy has been around for 50 years, you might start having doubts about the hype. This alarmism also makes more realistic predictions, which don't forecast utter doom immediately in a decade or two, as to be as understating the problems and hence looking as basically "anti-environmentalist".

It's not a problem, it's a correction. There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is and your unwillingness to acknowledge this fact is both intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, pathetic. — praxis

This is what interests you.

Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed — Janus

The only thing that's needed to slow the rate of technological development is for us to grasp what's going to happen if we don't.

I would agree that we're not going to grasp this through the processes of reason. As example, even though the Europeans enjoyed high culture and are the home of western philosophy etc, they weren't able to escape a centuries old pattern of constant warfare until the price of that pattern finally became too much to bear in WWII.

So if members want to stamp their feet, debunk my posts, and tell me what I "utterly fail to see" here's how to do that. Keep reminding me that what I utterly fail to see and accept is that attempting to address challenges of this scale through the processes of philosophy is a waste of everyone's time.

In summary, I'm smart enough to see that we are racing towards a cliff, and stupid enough to think that me typing about this to anyone who will listen is going to accomplish anything at all. See? There is a way to debunk me, and I've just handed it to you on a silver platter.

...to repeating a mantra of irrelevant anti-intellectualist dogma. — Janus

It's not "anti-intellectualist" to get that the success of science has created a revolutionary new environment which we are now required to adapt to, like it or not.

What's "anti-intellectualist" is clinging stubbornly to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was valid in the 19th century and earlier, but which has been made obsolete in our time.

People of your persuasion (most of the culture) aren't being intellectual or forward leaning, you are instead stuck in the past. The group consensus is unable or unwilling to adapt to the reality of the modern era, which illustrates my point of why we need to slow down.

Technologically we can go 100mph. Philosophically (and please do remember this is a philosophy forum) we can go 10mph. If you have some method by which we can dramatically accelerate up our ability to adapt philosophically to new environments, that would be a solution. Without such a plan, we have no choice but to slow down the technology, or die.

Karl has spoken repeatedly throughout the thread about the need for any organism to align itself with reality if it wants to survive. I agree with this principle and am attempting to apply it. The reality is that human judgment and maturity are limited, and thus technological development can not be unlimited, which is what's implied by the "more is better" relationship with knowledge.

The entire culture easily gets the concept that I'm selling when we are discussing humans under the age of 18. But once that child reaches their 18th birthday, we get hopelessly confused.

But to say that civilization will end in 15 or 30 years? Really? — ssu

What is it about the fact that the collapse of modern civilization could literally happen right now today in the next few minutes that you don't get?

An elaborate mechanism is in place which allows either of two individual human beings to destroy modern civilization almost instantly at the push of a button. And neither of these individuals are known for their high moral character.

If this is not a situation which justifies alarmist calls to action, what would be?

you might think the end is near. — ssu

I do. Even though I have been hearing the stories for 50 years. Even though I know that millennialism and doomsayers have been around forever. It seems to me that the scientific consensus makes a better prophet than biblical calculators of the second coming, as it is based on trends that are actually observed to be happening. Like this: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/30/humanity-wiped-out-animals-since-1970-major-report-finds?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2cdzQn0hOHRWG1npyDI_fNpzCjvoEWwTLLpeJfRpG8biCkTwsZJTtsImA

The good news is (WTF, good news from Jake???) that while we can't easily reverse species extinction, we could substantially reduce human populations fairly quickly. In theory at least.

There is no type of person, discipline, organization, or government that can reliably take a parental role for the human race. You're wrong to claim that there is.... — praxis

Except that I never did make that claim.

Here's how you might proceed, if you are actually interested in the topic.

1) You could argue that humanity can successfully manage any amount of power delivered at any rate. If you feel you can make that case, please do.

2) You could argue that humanity can NOT handle any amount of power delivered at any rate, and then apply yourself to constructively addressing that limitation.

If you can make a compelling case for #1, there then is no need for "Super Adults".

If you can't make a compelling case for #1, then some governing mechanism is required, and you could explore what that might be.

some governing mechanism — Jake

Lol

Only two simple steps to saving the world:

Step 1
Suggest that some mechanisms will cure cancer, feed the world, end war, fix climate change, etc etc.

Step 2
Declare yourself philosopher king!

What's "anti-intellectualist" is clinging stubbornly to a "more is better" relationship with knowledge which was valid in the 19th century and earlier, but which has been made obsolete in our time.

People of your persuasion (most of the culture) aren't being intellectual or forward leaning, you are instead stuck in the past. The group consensus is unable or unwilling to adapt to the reality of the modern era, which illustrates my point of why we need to slow down. — Jake

Who is "clinging" to a "more is better relationship with knowledge"? It's not a matter of "clinging"; when it comes to managing the environment, the economy and the body politic, more practicable knowledge obviously is better.

But the increase of knowledge is not the problem, it is rather the reverse; the increase in technological capability is not paralleled by an increase in the appropriate knowledge required to manage it.

The element of truth in your assertions seems to be that the problem really is the notion that more is better when it comes to consuming. If people would stop consuming so much then things would inevitably slow down. But the point is that modern civilization is like a racing train; no one knows how to stop it, and everyone is afraid to alight since it never stops, and we fear we would come to grief if we jump off.

The train is, under one perspective, driven by greed and desire for power of a few, but it is also driven by everyone's aspirations to live more prosperous and comfortable lives, with all the benefits of medical technologies, entertainment and cultural riches that come with it, and on the negative side it is driven by almost ubiquitous fears and insecurities. If it be acknowledged that we cannot simply stop the train or even deliberately slow it down, then obviously the best strategy would seem to be to intelligently redirect it as much as the circumstances allow.

Who is "clinging" to a "more is better relationship with knowledge"? — Janus

The group consensus, including yourself apparently.

It's not a matter of "clinging"; when it comes to managing the environment, the economy and the body politic, more practicable knowledge obviously is better. — Janus

This is the simplistic, outdated and dangerous "more is better" mindset left over from a past era characterized by knowledge scarcity. We no longer live in that era, but instead now live in an era characterized by a knowledge explosion. Assumptions that were valid in one era do not automatically remain valid in a radically different era.

You will rightly point to all the benefits which come with more knowledge, which I don't dispute at all. But that's only part of the story. More knowledge, power and benefits comes with a price tag. More knowledge, power and benefits also accrue to those who wish us harm, and to those who haven't fully thought through the new technologies.

As example, the industrial revolution was launched with the best of intentions, and has come with a great many benefits. But the price tag has been species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species.

The key thing to focus on is the issue of scale. As the scale of the accumulated powers grows the room for error steadily shrinks while the price tag for mistakes steadily grows. If the "more is better" philosophy remains in place it's only a matter of time until the one bad day when one or more of such powers slips from our control. As example, should we ever have a global nuclear war, or climate change spinning out of control, then none of the benefits of the industrial revolution will have been worth the price we had to pay for those benefits.

But the increase of knowledge is not the problem, it is rather the reverse; the increase in technological capability is not paralleled by an increase in the appropriate knowledge required to manage it. — Janus

Right, if we had some credible plan for accelerating the abilities of the "governing mechanism" of human maturity, judgment and sanity etc to match the accelerating growth of technological power then this would be a very different conversation. But the reality is that we have no such credible plan for human transformation.

What the group consensus is attempting to do might be compared to upgrading a race car engine to go 1,000mph, without bothering to also upgrade the tires. Point being, a good engineer looks for the weakest link, the single point of failure, and in this case that is us.

But the point is that modern civilization is like a racing train; no one knows how to stop it, and everyone is afraid to alight since it never stops, and we fear we would come to grief if we jump off. — Janus

Yes, true, no one knows how to slow down the racing train, because we adamantly refuse to try to learn this new skill. Instead, the group consensus invests all it's energy and intelligence in to trying to prove it can't be done. The cliche here is, if we think we can, or think we can't, either way we're probably right.

The train is, under one perspective, driven by greed and desire for power of a few, but it is also driven by everyone's aspirations to live more prosperous and comfortable lives, with all the benefits of medical technologies, entertainment and cultural riches that come with it, — Janus

Yes, this is surely true. We very reasonably cherish all the benefits past progress has provided and want to enjoy more such benefits. And further knowledge will provide more benefits. So, the group consensus is not insane, they aren't being ridiculous, they've just failed to think through where the racing train is taking us. If we continue to speed up the train without limit, sooner or later the train goes off the track and then all the benefits we love are erased.

If it be acknowledged that we cannot simply stop the train or even deliberately slow it down, then obviously the best strategy would seem to be to intelligently redirect it as much as the circumstances allow. — Janus

There's no reason to make such an acknowledgement when we've not even begun to try to slow down technological development. There's no reason to make such an acknowledgement when the group consensus basically refuses to even think about trying. You're preemptively declaring failure before any serious effort has been made.

Yes, intelligently directing the knowledge explosion is obviously a good plan. What you're not getting is that there is a limit to human ability, thus we can't simply project ever accelerating knowledge and power development in to the future without limit.

We will successfully direct much or most of technological development, but as the scale of powers grows that's simply no longer enough. Example, one bad day with nuclear weapons and it's game over, no matter how many brilliant benefits are being delivered elsewhere.

In the past when the scale of powers was modest, we could afford to make mistakes. As the scale of powers grows, such room for error is ever less available.

Right, if we had some credible plan for accelerating the abilities of the "governing mechanism" of human maturity, judgment and sanity etc to match the accelerating growth of technological power then this would be a very different conversation. — Jake

Well, the recipe for that is simple: education, the accepatnce of what science tells us about the natural world and the elimination of dogma and ideology from the curriculum for a start. What else could work?

What you're not getting is that there is a limit to human ability, — Jake

What you're not getting is that it is irrational to project current limits of understanding into the future. The future remains unknown. Apart from the obvious natural constraints, humans are mainly limited by their blind tendencies to cling to dogma and ideology. It is arguable that "species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species" come form a combination of clinging to outworn dogmas and ignorance or rejection of what the science tells us.

Yes, true, no one knows how to slow down the racing train, because we adamantly refuse to try to learn this new skill. — Jake

Sure, but the point is that the shift to alternative sustainable technologies will inevitably slow down the train. So, it's not clear what you're actually disagreeing with, or what you are proposing as a practical alterantive.

We will successfully direct much or most of technological development, but as the scale of powers grows that's simply no longer enough. Example, one bad day with nuclear weapons and it's game over, no matter how many brilliant benefits are being delivered elsewhere. — Jake

This is nothing more than unjustified alarmism. Alarmism is never going to be helpful, if only because most people cannot stomach it. The persistence of nuclear weapons is on account of neurotic nationaistic ideologies and cultural paranoias. It is lack of education and the alarmism that results that has caused, and sustains, the problem of nuclear weapons in the first place.

.

In the past when the scale of powers was modest, we could afford to make mistakes. — Jake

Burning fossil fuel is pretty low tech and modest in power. Can we afford the results? People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge, so restricting this one resource is not a solution. And speaking of power, some “governing mechanism” would require an immodest amount to effectively regulate scientific reasearch and technology on a global scale. Developing it would be antithetical your theory.

Well, the recipe for that is simple: education, the accepatnce of what science tells us about the natural world and the elimination of dogma and ideology from the curriculum for a start. What else could work? — Janus

Generally speaking, scientists already meet the criteria you've set. And they can't figure out how to design any technology that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. They're rushing headlong in to AI and genetic engineering without any real idea where that path takes us. And by inventing the industrial revolution they've created the threat of climate change, because they weren't able to think through where the industrial revolution would take us.

I'm not demonizing scientists here, who I see as smart people with generally good intentions. The point is instead that even those people who best fit your prescription aren't up to the job.

It is arguable that "species extinction, nuclear weapons, climate change each a threat to the existence of the human species" come form a combination of clinging to outworn dogmas and ignorance or rejection of what the science tells us. — Janus

Um, it was science that invented species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. And it is science culture that is leading the charge in clinging to the outdated "more is better" dogma. What science tells us is to keep on rushing ahead in a reckless pell mell fashion without any real idea of where that takes us, willfully ignoring the real world fact that it was this very process which has given us species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. No offense, by like Karl and most of our culture, you appear to have bought in to the science religion.

Sure, but the point is that the shift to alternative sustainable technologies will inevitably slow down the train. — Janus

How so?

What I see is that if we obtained free clean energy the economy would take off like a rocket, which would accelerate the depletion of finite resources, species extinction, human population growth, the further expansion of mega-cities, further invasion of the Amazon etc.

This is nothing more than unjustified alarmism. Alarmism is never going to be helpful, if only because most people cannot stomach it. — Janus

And this is characterizing an argument instead of meeting the argument.

The persistence of nuclear weapons is on account of neurotic nationaistic ideologies and cultural paranoias. It is lack of education and the alarmism that results that has caused, and sustains, the problem of nuclear weapons in the first place. — Janus

And so given that we have no credible solution to these longstanding human problems, we should give our highly imperfect selves more and more power at an ever faster rate? You're making my argument for me here.

People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge... — praxis

True, but knowledge is the source of the powers that we abuse. The fact that people tend to abuse all resources should suggest to us that perhaps we shouldn't be giving people ever greater powers at an ever accelerating rate.

At the least we might test ourselves before proceeding to see if we are ready for more power. Can we get rid of nuclear weapons? Can we decisively solve climate change? Can we clean up the messes we've already made? If yes, that would be evidence that we may be mature enough to handle new powers.

I wonder what would happen to "the energy issue" if we would simply get rid of all the useless things we don't need. I speculate there would be no energy issue.

We no longer live in that era, but instead now live in an era characterized by a knowledge explosion. Assumptions that were valid in one era do not automatically remain valid in a radically different era.

You will rightly point to all the benefits which come with more knowledge, which I don't dispute at all. But that's only part of the story. More knowledge, power and benefits comes with a price tag. More knowledge, power and benefits also accrue to those who wish us harm, and to those who haven't fully thought through the new technologies. — Jake

I agree with this, but I do not understand what you think might be done about it. On a personal level, I cannot unlearn even my times tables. And on a social level, closing university departments and burning books would be abhorrent and ineffective. More knowledge will not answer, but more ignorance even less.

People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge...
— praxis

True, but knowledge is the source of the powers that we abuse. — Jake

That's an odd thought, and you haven't yet addressed the issue of the need for advanced knowledge in the development of "some governing mechanism" that could enable your grand plan of knowledge suppression. As I pointed out, it would require an immodest amount of power, to put it mildly, in order to regulate all scientific research and technology across the globe. You'd need some pretty big guns to force your policies on every nation in the world, as well as some kind of advanced surveillance system like a powerful AGI. It would basically require technologies that are far more dangerous than anything that exists today.

A self-defeating plan is a stupid plan.

At the least we might test ourselves before proceeding to see if we are ready for more power. Can we get rid of nuclear weapons? — Jake

We've had nuclear weapons for around 75 years and haven't blown ourselves up yet. Maybe this is sufficient evidence that we can handle more powerful technologies.

And they can't figure out how to design any technology that would make nuclear weapons obsolete. — Jake

The continuing existence and/ or proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the result of a lack of ability of scientists to figure out alternative technologies. Scientists can only research what the political economies within which they work enable them to.

Scientists also did not "invent the industrial revolution"; it was enabled by the discovery of fossil fuels, and the inventions that allowed them to be exploited.

I'm not demonizing scientists here, who I see as smart people with generally good intentions. The point is instead that even those people who best fit your prescription aren't up to the job. — Jake

I think you are demonizing scientists and science, even though you disingenuously claim not to be doing so.

Um, it was science that invented species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. And it is science culture that is leading the charge in clinging to the outdated "more is better" dogma. What science tells us is to keep on rushing ahead in a reckless pell mell fashion without any real idea of where that takes us, willfully ignoring the real world fact that it was this very process which has given us species extinction, nuclear weapons and climate change. No offense, by like Karl and most of our culture, you appear to have bought in to the science religion. — Jake

Here is a prime example of your disingenousness; you know very well that scientists did not invent these things. They are the unforeseen consequences of industrialization, of the ignorant economic exploitation of resources. Of course scientists have played a part, just as we all have who enjoy the benefits of modern civilization, including you.

The culture is driven, not primarily by scientists (although of course its technological advancement is enabled in part by their research and invention) but by the greed and ambition of a few and the desire for comfort, convenience, entertainment and security of the many, including you. No offence, but you appear to have bought into these things, just like most everyone else; the difference being that you appear also to be a hypocrite insofar as you descry the very things you are using.

What I see is that if we obtained free clean energy the economy would take off like a rocket, which would accelerate the depletion of finite resources, species extinction, human population growth, the further expansion of mega-cities, further invasion of the Amazon etc. — Jake

If all those negative effects you predict would actually result, then it would not be "free clean energy" would it? Whether resources of one kind or another are depleted, species brought to extinction and environments degraded and so on, depends on whether they are managed intelligently, which depends on scientific understanding. You seem to have nothing positive to offer, just a bunch of empty assertions; so don't be surprised if others don't take what you say seriously.

The fact the discussion is more interesting without my taking part is an unexpected, and not altogether welcome revelation. Nonetheless, there are a few things I couldn't let go by without commenting on them. The first is SSU's remarks about the apparent hysteria centered around Earth Day, 1970. I can think of two reasonable explanations for what proved to be somewhat exaggerated claims. The first is that science isn't an independent activity in a world ruled by ideological conceptions of reality. There's a political and economic context that imposes certain imperatives - that might be met by sensationalism.

The second is that in 1970 - there were very few computers. Scientists communicated through journals and correspondence - (that's snail mail to you and I.) It's difficult to overstate the benefits personal computing and the internet have brought to scientific endeavor; less yet large computers capable of crunching numbers on a massive scale. The quality of scientific information is thus much improved since 1970.


The second thing I'd dispute is this:

We understand that prediction is prone to error. An error of 50 years in the timing of a catastrophe is important to those of us who will be safely dead in 50 years, but otherwise trivial. — unenlightened

For me, my life isn't confined to my current biological existence. It has a metaphysical dimension as a consequence of intellectual awareness. People have construed this dimension in many ways throughout the ages; but accepting a scientific understanding of reality, I'd suggest it implies the significance of genetic, intellectual and economic legacy carried forward by future generations. I believe this follows from a moral duty to the evolutionary struggle of previous generations that makes us who we are, and implies a moral obligation to use those abilities to further the interests of future generations.
I won't belabor the point by relating this back to the remarks above.

Next is this exchange between Jake and Janus:

Karl seems to feel that the human guidance system for the global technological machine can be successfully updated by some vague method that he can't seem to articulate beyond repeating "science as truth". Such vagueness seems acceptable to Karl, so he is up for full speed ahead on further construction of the global technological machine.
— Jake

Reading through this thread it is clear that what you utterly fail to see is that "the global technological machine" cannot be slowed (except by dire circumstances beyond human control of course), and so karl stone is right to propose that the only hope for humanity's future lies in technological redirection to more sustainable technologies. — Janus

I'm proposing a political course of action to correct our mistaken relationship to science and technology. I argue that nation states should accept a scientific understanding of reality in common as a basis to apply technology. At the same time however, I don't want to upturn the ideological apple-cart upon which billions of people depend. I do want to claim the functionality inherent in the relationship between valid knowledge and causal reality - but I also want people, politics and economics to be able to accept it. So it's a very delicate matter. There are religious sensitivities, political and economic interests, and a not entirely spurious fear that science as truth will turn us all into robots, marching foursquare in identical denim overalls. We don't want that!

In my arguments, the prior authority science owns as a consequence of epistemic superiority to primitive ideologies is limited by the principle of existential necessity; i.e. if we don't address this - we'll die. Beyond that, science has no authoritative political implication. That established, we can safely accept a scientific understanding of reality in common, in place of our various ideological misconceptions of reality, as a basis for the application of technology - to address scientifically conceived problems like climate change, deforestation, over-fishing, pollution etc. In the simplest possible terms - I'd describe this strategy as 'knowing what's true, and doing what's right in terms of what's true.'

The last thing I want to address is this:

As I pointed out, it would require an immodest amount of power, to put it mildly, in order to regulate all scientific research and technology across the globe. You'd need some pretty big guns to force your policies on every nation in the world, as well as some kind of advanced surveillance system like a powerful AGI. — praxis

Although this comment is offered in relation to Jake's suggestion that we 'stop the world while he gets off' - I think it's a reasonable criticism to take on board and address in relation to my own ideas. It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen.

It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen. — karl stone

I need to point out that capitalist economic interests do not equate to vast benefits. For us peasants, we float on the economic tide, and go up when the economy grows, and down when it contracts. But well managed capital prospers from downturns even more than from booms. When you can't pay the mortgage, someone else gets a cash bargain. So capitalists see advantages in conflict, war, and catastrophe, and not so much in stability, which explains why they should not be left in charge of things.

I need to point out that capitalist economic interests do not equate to vast benefits. For us peasants, we float on the economic tide, and go up when the economy grows, and down when it contracts. But well managed capital prospers from downturns even more than from booms. When you can't pay the mortgage, someone else gets a cash bargain. So capitalists see advantages in conflict, war, and catastrophe, and not so much in stability, which explains why they should not be left in charge of things. — unenlightened

I could not disagree more without swearing!

First, consider the political and personal freedom provided for by a capitalist economy - compared to a command economy. In a command economy the state owns everything, and designs the production and distribution of goods and services from start to finish. This is necessarily oppressive. Any dissent requires the harshest of responses precisely because it's a threat to production upon which people depend. People are told what to do and when to do it, what to eat and wear - right down to what they think and say, must be controlled as a consequence of the economic model.

In a capitalist economy, it's a genuine miracle - that goods and services are produced and distributed as a consequence of people's free, and 'rationally self interested' choices. It's called the 'invisible hand' - an idea described by Adam Smith in 'The Wealth of Nations" (1776.) I appreciate - it's not much fun being poor in a capitalist economy - but that's why one has to develop skills, or specialist knowledge - required by the market. It's that imperative that promotes the general good.

Third is an off-hand observation - but more or less valid nonetheless, that even the poor in modern capitalist societies have a better standard of living than medieval Kings - precisely because everyone is pursuing their rational self interest.

The continuing existence and/ or proliferation of nuclear weapons is not the result of a lack of ability of scientists to figure out alternative technologies. Scientists can only research what the political economies within which they work enable them to. — Janus

The fact remains..

We built them.

And can't get rid of them.

Thus, it's not logical to give ourselves ever greater powers at an ever faster rate.

I could not disagree more without swearing! — karl stone

Let me spell it out for you with a purely hypothetical example. I am a property developer called Grump, and you are a humble bricky. When times are good, I pay you well to build houses for me, and then lend you and your mates the money to buy one each. Times are good, so the value of the houses is high - everyone wants to own their own home. I pay your wages, and you pay me the mortgage, and everyone is happy. Then there is a downturn. I stop building houses, so you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and nor can your mates. You all have to sell up. Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying at the moment, and the value of the houses has gone down. They all go to auction, and I end up buying them at a very low price. Now I have the houses, the profit from selling high and buying low, and you still owe me the difference, plus you have to pay me rent. But don't worry, there are good times coming, and we can do it all again, because now I have even more money and I need to put it to work, and that means employing you again.

I understand that this makes you angry, I understand that you don't want to believe it works this way, but wise up dude, it does.

Let me spell it out for you with a purely hypothetical example. I am a property developer called Grump, and you are a humble bricky. When times are good, I pay you well to build houses for me, and then lend you and your mates the money to buy one each. Times are good, so the value of the houses is high - everyone wants to own their own home. I pay your wages, and you pay me the mortgage, and everyone is happy. Then there is a downturn. I stop building houses, so you lose your job, and cannot pay your mortgage, and nor can your mates. You all have to sell up. Unfortunately (for you) no one is buying at the moment, and the value of the houses has gone down. They all go to auction, and I end up buying them at a very low price. Now I have the houses, the profit from selling high and buying low, and you still owe me the difference, plus you have to pay me rent. But don't worry, there are good times coming, and we can do it all again, because now I have even more money and I need to put it to work, and that means employing you again. I understand that this makes you angry, I understand that you don't want to believe it works this way, but wise up dude, it does. — unenlightened

I'm not angry at all. The crack about swearing was only for emphasis and hopefully, a chuckle. Sorry if it was misjudged.

I do not doubt that in individual transactions between parties in a capitalist economy there can be winners and losers, but there are mechanisms we invent to account for these like laws, and insurance. If what Grump did wasn't actually illegal - it probably should be illegal to offer a mortgage to an employee without insurance against redundancy.

In terms of the ideas I've put forward however, I'd argue that the ideological context of capitalism - as opposed to the scientific context that would ideally follow, had we accepted science as truth from 1630 - lends the motives for the disaster capitalism you allude to.

Take brexit as an example - a wildly false and divisive propaganda campaign incited the British to leave the EU in a manner that will very likely crash the economy, and provide the excuse for a rabidly right wing policy proscription to deal with the crisis.

Had we accepted science as truth, and integrated it on an ongoing basis since 1630 however - we'd be very different people in a very different world. It wouldn't be like this. We'd be more rational and honest - because science is rational and honest, and maybe such things wouldn't occur. Who can say? It's not what we did, and not who we are. We don't worship science as the revealed word of God made manifest in reality. But if we are to survive, we have to get there from here - and harnessing capitalist forces is indispensable to any possible solution to our problems.

I agree with this, but I do not understand what you think might be done about it. — unenlightened

For starters, what we're doing now, philosophy. Using reason to examine and challenge the "more is better" group consensus to see if it can withstand scrutiny. If we can come to understand what the price tag will be for continuing on the "more is better" path we'll stop endlessly repeating "nothing can be done" and start applying ourselves to the challenge. We're currently chanting "nothing can be done" because we don't want to do anything, and think we can get by continuing the patterns of the past.

Let's consider examples of "what might be done".

Gun Control: Although we endlessly argue about what the exact nature of gun control should be, there is wide agreement that civilians should not be able to buy surface to air missiles at the Army Navy store. That is, the group consensus has rejected "more is better" in regards to the lethal powers available to civilians (and many other issues).

The Paris Agreement: Most nations of the Earth, except those currently being led by stupid people, have perceived the threat from climate change and have agreed to implement sweeping changes in order to respond to it. A very imperfect process, but a step in the right direction.

The Amish: The group consensus keeps saying that modifying "more is better" is impossible, while blatantly ignoring the real world evidence that some among us have already long ago done so, and continue to do so successfully. While it's very unlikely that we'll all become Amish, what the Amish have proven is that it's possible to have fulfilling human lives without totally surrendering to the dangerous pursuit of more and more and more without limit.

However, to argue against everything I've just typed above....

The evidence also clearly shows that the odds that we'll adapt to the new reality of the knowledge explosion era through reason alone are quite slim. It's too big of a philosophical paradigm shift to be accomplished with just philosophy.

So the best that "can be done" for now may be to educate ourselves to the limited degree possible while we await some huge historical event(s) which will blast us out of our philosophical slumbers. The example I've used here is to point to the European relationship with warfare, which changed only when the price tag for repetitive warfare became too high to bear. Philosophy alone was not sufficient to reveal the insanity of repetitive warring, it took mass doses of pain to get the job done.

But, for now at least, it appears the Europeans have indeed learned the lesson. So if the coming calamity doesn't kill us off, we will learn the lessons we need to learn as well.