Ecophilosophy has been going a good while: 50 -60 years. I think now it's a question of whether you want to die trying to reduce the catastrophe or die making it worse. How does this scratch your surface?

https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-not-the-sixth-extinction-its-the-first-extermination-event/?utm_source=sharebuttons&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=mashshare&fbclid=IwAR1V6O12c2qTcK0eJCfoablz_ZIfznbAd3o6AFgB0g9JBgEhVQGNdW1Xsv0

All of these are excellent questions for philosophers, and everyone else. I would submit that we should stop beating ourselves up. We are following pathways our species evolved to behave and not behave. There are some very unappetizing prospects waiting down the road, if not around the corner.

The key to the global log jam is found in two human features:

The first is that those who control economic decision-making are those who have benefit most from the fossil fuel industry (which took off during the Industrial Revolution). The Koch brothers come to mind, but there are a few million energy and manufacturing stockholders whose fabulous wealth is vested in the status quo.

The second key is the limit on our evolved capacity to feel the urgency of distant (and complex) events. We can know that rising levels of CO2, methane, and other gases are a real threat to our future. We are less successful at feeling the urgency of the not-immediate threat.

The U.S. and the UK were able to mobilize tremendous research and production capacity in WWII because the threat was both existential and immediate. It was not necessary to imagine a fascist axis capable of destroying us. (Even so, it required simultaneous attacks on Hawaii and Philippines (then US territories) to get past US isolationism. The climate crisis is less certain, and for lots of people, a bit too distant. It is "less certain" because we don't know exactly when and how it will unfold for us.

When I say "we" I mean billions of people. The individuals who make up the big "we" one by one can not make long-range policy. The powerful million people who are in a position to make long term policy have interests in the status quo, and like the rest of us, don't "feel" long-term threats.

I put my faith in "Mother Nature" who has ways of resolving difficult problems for species. We probably won't like her solutions, and some among our esteemed selves will be subject to her judgements.

We’re still in an ice age that has lasted millions of years. But as of now we exist in a brief warm period known as the Holocene Age during which humans have been thriving. Given that the current ice age or another ice age is due to end the Holocene age, and thus end human thriving, could anthropogenic climate change be a good thing?

Is democracy capable of changing the course of inevitable disaster? — Malcolm Parry

The world has been in a state of inevitable environmental disaster since Malthus. The predictions never come true. Some think the notion that there even is an "inevitable disaster" is itself a form of mass hysteria. As recently as the 1980s Paul Erlich made a bunch of doomsday predictions, none of which came true. He bet that a basket of commodities would be far higher in price, and they turned out to be far lower. We crawled out of caves and built all this. I would not bet against the human race.

Your question reveals the unspoken, evil truth about environmentalism. You ask if democracy is capable. Because if it isn't ... you advocate authoritarianism.

That's what underlies environmentalism. The desire for YOU to control the world; because only YOU know what's best. Just the other day Bernie Sanders said he wanted a massive program of birth control implemented in third world countries. Bernie doesn't want the poor people of the world to reproduce. That's socialism. Abstract principles over actual human beings; by force of law and force of arms.

I'll take democracy, the voice of the people; and free markets, the voice of people spending their own money on things that give them value.

think now it's a question of whether you want to die trying to reduce the catastrophe or die making it worse

That doesn't make a blind but if difference to the issue. So if I may as well make it slightly worse and enjoy it. I don't see any moral imperative to change if there are people using way more resources than me. Hence, the rationing question.

I'm sceptical of the environmental lobby. I'm unsure if the dire warnings are justified. But there doesn't seem any mechanism put forward to counter the possible consequences of climate change.
Or is it just carry on as we are and if it happens it happens.

Or is it just carry on as we are and if it happens it happens. — Malcolm Parry

Now I did not say that and I hope you can see that I did not say that. I will forgive your rhetorical excess but I will most definitely respond.

I am old enough to attest that the air is cleaner now than it was in the 1970's. I like whales and stuff. Everything in moderation. The opposite of rabid, hysterical environmentalism is sensibly balancing respect for the environment, one the one hand, and the needs of 300 million people to have a functioning economy, on the other.

The negation of fanaticism is sensible progress; not fanaticism in the opposite direction.

Sad that our modern politics involves two groups of fanatics yelling at each other while the rest of us look on in horror and hope for the best.

I'll take democracy, the voice of the people; and free markets, the voice of people spending their own money on things that give them value.


This was why I said just carry on and see what happens because I cannot see how the status quo can combat the issue.

That is assuming that there is such a thing as man made climate change.

Is democracy capable of changing the course of inevitable disaster? — Malcolm Parry

No. There's plenty of ecological protests to no avail.
As you pointed out, it's inevitable.

Is rationing a viable way forward? — Malcolm Parry

It's a way, just not forward.
It's a temporary solution like reducing the flow of blood to stall venom.

Is there any point to changing the way we act in the developed world — Malcolm Parry

Obviously, if you want to develop further.

It's a temporary solution like reducing the flow of blood to stall venom. — Shamshir

I've worked out how to quote!!

Why is it temporary? With 6 billion people and, I assume but could be wrong, a limit on how much we can consume to keep the planet balanced then what is the alternative.

Obviously, if you want to develop further. — Shamshir

This is the nub of my questions. How do we develop?

We have already wiped out the majority of large fauna from the planet.

What is the way forward? I'm intrigued to what philosophy has to offer.

Individual freedom seems to be no longer fit for purpose. Again, I could be wrong and open to suggestions. I'm new at this .

I put my faith in "Mother Nature" who has ways of resolving difficult problems for species. We probably won't like her solutions, and some among our esteemed selves will be subject to her judgements. — Bitter Crank

So is this an agenda to do nothing?

I am if the opinion that there is little we can do but if there is a consensus amongst scientists that it is a massive issue then what has philosophy got to offer?

I may not be explaining myself properly but is philosophy just a talking shop with nothing to offer?

Good work on figuring out quotes.

I forgot who's aphorism this is, but essentially:
Take full swigs when the bottle is full.
Sip moderately when it is at half, so it may last.
When almost empty there is nothing left to savour, so finish it at once.

So it looks like a solution on the forefront but it's really just a patch up, since the earth has been leeched off to the bottom of the bottle.

To develop - first and foremost, we would have to discard money and secrecy. With all the artificial barriers currently barring progress, you'll have to wait out total collapse i.e the dam has to break.

Think about how much better things would be if the oil scheme failed and water was entirely free. Just two little things, with huge ramifications.

So it looks like a solution on the forefront but it's really just a patch up, since the earth has been leeched off to the bottom of the bottle. — Shamshir

That's my take on it. We have a bumpy ride ahead.

I'll just forget all about it and enjoy the moment.

Enjoy and do whatever good you can. Complaining only adds to the turmoil.

To echo a certain quote:
"Get some self-respect you miserable sack of shit! Build a house a lady would set foot in!"

And that's what me and a friend are doing.
The house is our country and the lady is the kids - the people of tomorrow.
If everyone contributes bit by bit, changing isn't so miraculous - just work and patience.

New here but want to ask a few questions.
What has philosophy got to say about the current state of the world with regards to climate change?
How is the individual to act?
How should the State act?
Is democracy capable of changing the course of inevitable disaster?
Is capitalism no longer fit for purpose?
Is rationing a viable way forward?
Is there any point to changing the way we act in the developed world?

Nothing I have seen over the last few years even scratches the surface of the issue. — Malcolm Parry

Well, it's not climate change per se that's the issue.Man-made climate change is. Climate change from hereon means man-made climate change

There are people who say emphatically that "climate change is real!!" but that begs the question as that's the core issue to be proved. Obviously, therefore, there are climate change deniers.

Let's leave aside the question of the truth whatever it may be but consider how climate change relates to philosophy. To me, simple that I am, it's about moral responsibility. I just watched a video on climate change and the problem for humans and the ecosystem is both in terms of the ways by which climate change occurs and its consequences.

Climate change is caused primarily by deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Deforestation effects extinction of species, plants themselves and the species that depend on them. Fossil fuels fill the air with carbondioxide and cause global warming which, in turn, affects the ecosystem. Global warming increases the frequencies of floods, droughts and other natural disasters.

As you can see it's a very ugly situation and we are (going to be) responsible for it. It's pretty clear that disaster is imminent if it hasn't already begun and it calls upon our moral sensibilities, seeing that we're responsible, to do something about it.

I believe there have been many conferences on climate change and there is, if only just so, an international consensus that we must act to stop a global catastrophe. If not then at least selfish self-preservation instincts should kick in. The point is that climate change is an issue of moral responsibility: Are we going to be responsible for the collapse of the earth's ecosystem? If that doesn't help, after all human morality hasn't managed to expand in scope beyond the fellow human: Are we going to be responsible for the deaths of millions of humans that'll occur if no action is taken?

It seems, ergo, that climate change is the "opportune" moment for the development of a more expansive morality that not only includes all of humanity but also other species, even plants. We are morally responsible for not only what we, as individuals, do but also for what our family, community, country, all of earth itself, does. We are morally responsible for all of life.

Enjoy and do whatever good you can. — Shamshir

Why? For what purpose?

This is what I have a problem with. The good bit not the enjoy bit.

To live good, you need to treat yourself good.
To treat yourself good, treat the world good.
Because the world is your home.

Kill and you'll live amongst corpses.
Raise people up, so that you might live amongst equals.

Just for the record, the meme that ‘both sides of the climate debate are hysterical’ is straight out of the climate change denial playbook. There are not ‘two sides’ - climate change due to industrialisation is an established fact and a mortal peril to humanity and the planet. There are simply the facts of the case, and the many powerful forces wishing to deny the facts. Those are the ‘two sides’.

It seems, ergo, that climate change is the "opportune" moment for the development of a more expansive morality that not only includes all of humanity but also other species, even plants — TheMadFool

I take your points about the definition. I am still a little sceptical about the science and modelling but I'm convinced that we have already trashed the planet.

I agree that we need a more expansive morality but how will this manifest itself? What actions will come from the new morality?
,

To live good, you need to treat yourself good.
To treat yourself good, treat the world good — Shamshir

What does that mean?

Your world is your reflection.

I take your points about the definition. I am still a little sceptical about the science and modelling but I'm convinced that we have already trashed the planet.

I agree that we need a more expansive morality but how will this manifest itself? What actions will come from the new morality? — Malcolm Parry

It's a pet theory of mine in the sense I believe it but it may have origins in some great/not-so-great philosopher.

The problem with morality is the persistence of the us vs not-us dichotomy. This, while contrary to the spirit of morality which must be about equality and therefore negation of us vs not-us, is the main cause of moral failure. Slavery was about racial us vs not-us. Racism is also the same format. If something is not-us then immoral acts against it becomes permissible and acceptable.

In my opinion there's a trend in morality regarding us vs not-us - what we consider morally worthy, the us is an expanding set. Slavery is a thing of the past (hopefully), racism is frowned upon, animal rights is a thing, etc. Slaves become us, other races become us, animals become us, and so on...

In this context, climate change, inspite of its grim predictions, is an opportunity for humans to finally complete the trend I described above - the us expanded so thoroughly that there is no not-us. Have you heard of Gaia theory? Something like that. When this happens, if this happens, the climate change problem would be solved. In fact I can even go so far as to say all humanity's problems would be solved - the beginnings of Utopia. I know this may come across as insane or stupid but I based it on a moral trend that is noticeable - the ever-expanding domain of the morally worthy, the us.

There maybe other philosophical dimensions to climate change but the moral nature of the problem jumped out at me.

So is this an agenda to do nothing? — Malcolm Parry

Absolutely not. But there are some problems we can't solve. If there are too many people for the earth's carrying capacity, there is no solution to over-population that we can carry out that would not be morally revolting and utterly dehumanizing. That's where nature comes in. As we exceed capacity... nature will provide some solutions (starvation, disease, natural catastrophe, war...). It's all very unpleasant, and doesn't just apply to the third world.

It is technically possible to lower the levels of CO2 and methane fairly quickly. It would just mean slamming the brakes to the floor on the world economy and producing a political-economic-social train wreck. But that's what we should do if we want to have a long-term future. We don't have time for gradual solutions.

Is it even technically possible to sufficiently brake the CO2/methane economy? Yes, but no one has any appetite for that. It involves things like

a) sharply and rapidly reducing auto/truck traffic (now the major source of CO2 in the N. hemisphere)
b) switch to trains for freight, rebuild passenger train service especially for local travel (25-50 mile radii of urban cores), sharply increase walking and biking for short trips (less than 5 miles)
c) changing to at least vegetarian diets
d) reducing production of non-essential goods (like water bottles, plastic containers for everything, much of the junk at IKEA, Walmart, Amazon, Target, Macy's, Bloomingdales, etc.), cars, recreational vehicles, and so on.
e. Plant three trillion trees. That isn't as impossible as it looks. 400+ trees per person.
... well you get the picture.

We’re still in an ice age that has lasted millions of years. But as of now we exist in a brief warm period known as the Holocene Age during which humans have been thriving. Given that the current ice age or another ice age is due to end the Holocene age, and thus end human thriving, could anthropogenic climate change be a good thing? — NOS4A2

You're dying, nose4. Could shooting you at close range in the chest with a .45 be a good thing?

Or could you be that stupid?

You're dying, nose4. Could shooting you at close range in the chest with a .45 be a good thing?

Or could you be that stupid?

I’m living, woody. Is this supposed to be an argument?

Just for the record, the meme that ‘both sides of the climate debate are hysterical’ is straight out of the climate change denial playbook. — Wayfarer

What side on an argument would say they are hysterical (too)?

For those who can read. You'll maybe be frozen in an ice-age glacier in maybe some tens of thousands of years - if there's an ice age on that schedule. But there's a chance modern climate change will kill you personally in your own lifetime. Can you tell the difference?

We're in an ice age.

It is technically possible to lower the levels of CO2 and methane fairly quickly. It would just mean slamming the brakes to the floor on the world economy and producing a political-economic-social train wreck. — Bitter Crank

Nah.

Let's just go to renewables and use nuclear energy as a stop gap and forget the absurd visions of Thanos environmentalism (from Avengers, you know). People take actually quite well droughts and other extreme weather. Heck, we have done just fine with repairing or at least stopping the breakdown of the ozone layer.