My pops was gay, and we had many great discussions about queerness (in the army in the 1940s and after) before he died at age 91.

I'm using Bakhtin's concept of dialogic as my model. It's the opposite of an antagonistic exchange, a one-upmanship, a win or lose debate stance. It's meant to increase understanding between individuals.

And I do appreciate your invention of the term polymorphic: it's just not Freud's term.

I will drink to that!!!

when I see I want to become gay :joke:

The naturalistic fallacy you set out referring to is the fallacy of assuming that because something comes from nature, our ancestors did it, or it's an inborn/genetic trait that it therefore must be (usually) good or (less common) bad. — Artemis

I am not sure how to answer the part of your question, "in what way"? — uncanni

Read the above. It's an ethical perspective but roughly approximates what I want to say: We are natural are we not? How is it then that our behavior, even if it cause global warming, unnatural? Are you saying that the majority, who don't really give a damn about the environment, is behaving unnaturally?

As you can see this can't be a statistical argument since the majority defines what is natural. This may not be completely accurate because to make your case that global warming is caused by unnatural behavior of humans you'd actually need to study the entire biosphere and then, as will be evident, humans stand out like a sore thumb with major environmental impact.

Are you saying that the majority, who don't really give a damn about the environment, is behaving unnaturally? — TheMadFool

Good question!!! That leaves me wondering, Is self-destruction natural or unnatural? Is destruction of the environment natural or unnatural? I'd use the word pathological rather than unnatural.

I wasn't referring to human behavior, which I still resist characterizing in "natural/unnatural" terms. Perhaps all activity performed by human beings is natural to them, so that nothing would be unnatural if it's done by someone. So natural human behavior includes a tremendous amount of destructive activity... Violence and all-consuming greed certainly appear to be natural to humans.
That still leaves me thinking that climate change is an unnatural process brought on by poisoning the environment, which would be included in natural, destructive human activity.

As you can see this can't be a statistical argument since the majority defines what is natural. This may not be completely accurate because to make your case that global warming is caused by unnatural behavior of humans you'd actually need to study the entire biosphere and then, as will be evident, humans stand out like a sore thumb with major environmental impact. — TheMadFool

The planet has undergone numerous changes which includes cooling and heating without any help from humans. If humans contribute to environmental change then humans are just one of those modern causes of changes in temperature. Other organisms have shaped their environments and caused the extinction of other species. Talk of human activity being artificial or unnatural is trying to separate humans from nature which is what religions have been trying to do for millennia. It is a use of language that stems from one's view that humans are special creations or separate for nature.

It can also stem from the notion that Earth was made specifically for humans and that any changes that we make from the way it was created is unnatural. The fact is the Earth what's not specially made for humans or even organisms it just happens to be that way temporarily. Things change.

And I do appreciate your invention of the term polymorphic: it's just not Freud's term. — uncanni

No, no, I didn't 'invent' it. It's a real word, I misapplied it, and you are correct -- polymorphous is the word I was reaching for. Mrs. Crabapple ordered me to stay after school and write on the blackboard 100 times, "I will not mistake polymorphous perversity for polymorphic perversity ever again."

I wasn't referring to human behavior, which I still resist characterizing in "natural/unnatural" terms. Perhaps all activity performed by human beings is natural to them, so that nothing would be unnatural if it's done by someone. So natural human behavior includes a tremendous amount of destructive activity... Violence and all-consuming greed certainly appear to be natural to humans.
That still leaves me thinking that climate change is an unnatural process brought on by poisoning the environment, which would be included in natural, destructive human activity. — uncanni

Homo sapiens and our various poly-morph-ous per-ver-si-ties in all categories are natural, but we are a special case. Invention of complex technology which never existed before is natural for us, just as using tools is natural for New Caledonia crows. The crow's reach, however, does not exceed his grasp. Ours does. We consider it a virtue for a man's reach to exceed his grasp.

It is also natural for us to not think ahead 10, 20, 30 or 300 years to assess what the effects of our de novo technology might be. Let me emphasize that point: We aren't merely being stupid: we did not evolve the behavior of 10, 20, 30, or 300 year foresight. We evolved into modern human beings between 100,00 and 300,000 years ago, and during that long stretch of time, we hunted, we gathered, we chipped stone tools, and we had minimal impact on the planet. When we get something new and nifty like an automobile or a cigarette, we don't think about 50,000 - 100,000 deaths a year as the consequence. (It's taken us 60 years of concerted effort to reduce the rate of smoking significantly; cars have been made safer. But it's an uphill effort, requiring states to pass legislation making it illegal to hold and use a cellphone while driving. One would think that the paragon of animals could figure out that texting while driving was stupid, but... no.

James Watt might have foreseen that his steam engine would lead to a vast exploitation of coal, but he could not have foreseen what the long term effects of fossil fuel combustion on the climate. Because Watt lived within a capitalist economy, his invention was exploited immediately to maximize production and profit. [The first working steam engine had been patented in 1698 and by the time of Watt's birth, Newcomen engines were pumping water from mines all over the country. In around 1764, Watt was given a model Newcomen engine to repair.]

Did the developers of the cell phone and the smart phone (c. 1992 -- the Simon by IBM combined digital computing with a cell phone) think about the consequences? They did not. Did they intend for the smart phone to be used as a texting device while someone was driving a car? I would hope not; did they expect diners at one table to all be staring at or talking on their phones?

Need I mention what happened after the Manhattan Project produced an atomic bomb?

All that is part of our natural endowment: the capacity to invent and exploit without a balancing capacity to be guided by long-term estimations of consequences (if they are even produced).

We are thus doomed (fated, as it were) to be burnt by our ingenious abilities.

Climate change is natural; if 1000 volcanoes blow about the same time, the released gases will change the climate--naturally. What is tragic (fated, again) is that we have known about imminent climate change for at least 30 years and have so far been unable to achieve any of the targets for CO2 and methane emissions reduction. Yes, there is some progress being made, but business as usual is pretty much not changing and time is running out on our chance to avoid dangerous climate warming.

It isn't that we are just too stupid, too wicked, too... too whatever. We are just not able to change behavior even though we know the threat. Our brains do not work in such a way that 7 billion people can coordinate their behavior to radically change their economic and personal arrangements.

Uncanni: It's a lovely day here in the upper-midwest. The temperature is appropriate to the season, it's breezy, clear, and very pleasant. Global warming? What? Let's buy a big new SUV and take a long road trip.

We consider it a virtue for a man's reach to exceed his grasp. — Bitter Crank

Here's my take on that statement: Not all of us consider that a virtue. It's also recognized historically, psychologically and sociologically as extraordinarily destructive. Here's one example of what I'm thinking: While our species is technologically saavy as all get-out, we have not evolved emotionally/psychologically in, what?, the last five-ten thousand years? Freud, speaking of old polymorphous perversity himself, wrote some things in Civilization and Its Discontents that became, some decades ago, an essential part of my Weltanschaaung: the world is teeming with ambitious, power-hungry, greedy, agressive, violent beings who seem to be better at scrambling to the top of the heap and wreaking havoc on all those below.

One would think that the paragon of animals could figure out that texting while driving was stupid, but... no. — Bitter Crank

And that's another thing: My pops, who was an anthropologist, used to say, We ground apes never finish growing up, maturing. We're not like any other species except maybe gorillas. It takes humans a lifetime to mature, and I am not sure that the vast majority ever do. My definition of maturity: the ability to control the agressive impulses, to strive to truly know oneself by examining one's own darker motives or shadow side or evil impulses (cruelty to others) , and to practice kindness to all species and Mother Earth. And the ozone.

The first working steam engine had been patented in 1698 — Bitter Crank

I had no idea that it was invented that early! And yet you read Engels' Conditions of the Working Class written in 1845 and it's evident that some people did clearly perceive what was happening...Which ultimately led to that failed experiment called the Boshevick Revolution...

We are just not able to change behavior even though we know the threat. Our brains do not work in such a way — Bitter Crank

I hope I'm not manipulating that quote by truncating it, but it serves my purposes: Perhaps not everyone is capable of changing thinking, feeling and behavior. Perhaps all the greedy agressive sociopaths cannot, although for example in Relational Psychotherapy, they are beginning to approach working with sociopaths and psychopaths with a new approach which believes in and seeks out the possibility that even psychopaths can think, feel and behave differently.

Well, Bitter Crank, it's been a beautiful day down here in the dirty South: I have the entire week off from teaching because of the hurricane threat to the coastal communities from which many of my students come. I'm down for the road trip: do they make electric SUVs? :naughty:

Is there anything that is not statistically uncommon (or "unnatural", or "weird", or whatever terminology we want to use for it) in some way? We would have to be able to find something that when we look at all of its attributes, nothing about it is uncommon. Such a thing would not be detectable because it has no distinguishing features.

do they make electric SUVs? — uncanni

Yes, but the extension cord has to be really long.