But how the hell do you re-engineer the entire world of billions around individual lines? Do you have some non-theoretical, practical solutions? — Tom Storm

Unfortunately, the elite have always known how to deal with the rest of us...fear, lying, coercion, extortion, murder, fraud, theft, counterfeiting, and of late, bribery.

On the other hand, a great number of people seem to want to do very little or nothing to help themselves out, so your guess is as good as mine.

You do what you can to get your own act together and then you help others when and where possible. Otherwise, try to get three people to agree on something, yet 8B!

My sense of it is that we are but a temporary surface nuisance here on the planet and we should be leaving sooner than later.

I hear you on this - this position has many adherents but what can we actually do? Is it even worth advocating individualism if there is no way to put this into practice - other than revolution and we know how they tend to end up?

I agree, as a dominant species humans have a use-by date and the planet will be just fine without us.

we are but a temporary surface nuisance — synthesis

Saddened to read your resigned perspectives. Does it imply that you don't believe a sustainable future is possible? Or is it that you don't believe it's possible for us? Is your resignation a consequence of the unlikelihood of this plan being put into effect? Had you considered that the right move would necessarily be improbable? The probable course is what you're resigned to! And further you seem to imply that you're aware of the inadequacy of the current approach - that it probably won't work.

humans have a use-by date — Tom Storm

You say, as a basis to pass on the opportunity to prolong that date - like it were you now, with the right to decide if humankind is worthy to exist. Our ancestors thought so; they planted trees the shade of which they would not sit in - but you're resigned that it should all come to naught on your watch? That saddens me immensely when I've explained why and what trees you might plant to provide shade for subsequent generations. So, is it not possible, or is it not possible for us?

but you're resigned that it should all come to naught on your watch? — counterpunch

What on earth makes you say that? You need to stop being so jumpy. :smile: I am simply speculating that we will end. I suspect pandemics or war are just as likely to do the job as rapacious corporate fuck- the-world culture. That said, you have no way of knowing what I or anyone else has done or does outside of a little forum.

What on earth makes you say that? You need to stop being so jumpy. I am simply speculating that we will end. I suspect pandemics or war are just as likely to do the job as rapacious corporate fuck- the-world culture. That said, you have no way of knowing what I or anyone else has done or does outside of a little forum. — Tom Storm

I hope you're wrong.

Saddened to read your resigned perspectives. Does it imply that you don't believe a sustainable future is possible? Or is it that you don't believe it's possible for us? Is your resignation a consequence of the unlikelihood of this plan being put into effect? Had you considered that the right move would necessarily be improbable? The probable course is what you're resigned to! And further you seem to imply that you're aware of the inadequacy of the current approach - that it probably won't work. — counterpunch

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens.

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add).

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can.

I posit the theory to illustrate the argument that science is significant knowledge we need to pay attention to if we want to survive as a species — counterpunch

Sounds to me like you're constantly exposed to the opinions of dumb fucks.

I hope you succeed amid your context. Best of wishes.

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens. — synthesis

So you're saying that you don't know if a sustainable future is possible, but probably not because people are stupid? I don't need to point out the irony there, do I?

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add). — synthesis

I see myself as having inherited huge gifts from previous generations - it is my obligation to use such that I pass greater gifts onto subsequent generations. I live in the moment that is the current link in that great chain, and seek to make it a strong link. I don't think I dwell in the past or future overmuch, so I'm slightly puzzled as to why you offer this advice. But thank you for saying it's a noble endeavour.

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can. — synthesis

I love nature, but do not romanticise it. Evolution is a brutal and prodigiously wasteful process, so being in concert with nature would make you genocidal. There's a great deal to learn from studying our evolutionary history, but the occurrence of intellectual intelligence marks a qualitative boundary that breaks any naturalistic fallacy type implication; that because it's natural we "ought" do this or that. For example, earlier you said that 25 species a day go extinct - but does not imply that we will, or ought not be concerned - because we can act upon knowledge to avoid catastrophe, and I believe it is, at least scientifically and technologically possible.

I take the position that it is impossible to know these things but based on our limited knowledge and spartan mental capacity, I'd go short homo sapiens.
— synthesis

So you're saying that you don't know if a sustainable future is possible, but probably not because people are stupid? I don't need to point out the irony there, do I? — counterpunch

I wouldn't characterize people as being stupid, just ignorant (with a plethora of psychological issues [as our nascent intelligence has obvious factory defects]). Considering our potential, we appear to be serious underachievers.

If you approach each moment as brand new, averting the trap of being caught in the snare of past thoughts, you are given the chance to live fully and continuously without regard to this, that, and the other thing, particularly attempting to save the species (a very noble endeavor, I might add).
— synthesis

I see myself as having inherited huge gifts from previous generations - it is my obligation to use such that I pass greater gifts onto subsequent generations. I live in the moment that is the current link in that great chain, and seek to make it a strong link. I don't think I dwell in the past or future overmuch, so I'm slightly puzzled as to why you offer this advice. But thank you for saying it's a noble endeavour.

If you look at man's history, one cannot assume that progress will not have its hiccups.
— counterpunch

I prefer to be among the other organisms that ply the planet attempting to live my life as close to being in concert with Nature as possible, so whether we last another twenty minutes or several million years is of no matter to me. I'll take each moment as they come and do the best I can.
— synthesis

I love nature, but do not romanticize it. Evolution is a brutal and prodigiously wasteful process, so being in concert with nature would make you genocidal. There's a great deal to learn from studying our evolutionary history, but the occurrence of intellectual intelligence marks a qualitative boundary that breaks any naturalistic fallacy type implication; that because it's natural we "ought" do this or that. For example, earlier you said that 25 species a day go extinct - but does not imply that we will, or ought not be concerned - because we can act upon knowledge to avoid catastrophe, and I believe it is, at least scientifically and technologically possible. — counterpunch

I believe the greatest flaw in man's intelligence is the idea that he can outsmart Nature. Observe some of the species that have been around significantly longer than have we and I believe you will find they are incredibly well-adapted to the way things are (not to the way they would like them to be).

I wouldn't characterize people as being stupid, just ignorant (with a plethora of psychological issues [as our nascent intelligence has obvious factory defects]). Considering our potential, we appear to be serious underachievers. — synthesis

Humanity contains genius. The distribution of talents is uneven, I accept that. I think I'm slightly above average, but I'm not a hugely social person. My impression could be wildly off. We are an intelligent species, and I'm quite proud of what has been wrought from the bare earth by what seems to me, extraordinary intelligence and effort. We are all part of that - such that for instance, I don't know exactly how this computer works, but I live in a world that does. I don't need to comprehend that knowledge to benefit from it.

I believe the greatest flaw in man's intelligence is the idea that he can outsmart Nature. Observe some of the species that have been around significantly longer than have we and I believe you will find they are incredibly well-adapted to the way things are (not to the way they would like them to be). — synthesis

I get your point, but it goes to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the ability to form forward facing strategies for survival. Man is by nature - outsmarting nature, because in lieu of claws, sharp teeth and the ability to run very fast, he lives by his wits. Intelligence is his niche. All this is wrought from the earth by intelligence. Not mine, admittedly, but by the genius of my species.

What the hell is wrong with me?

Never met the right people.

I think I did once or twice, but just didn't realise it at the time. They're very difficult to distinguish from the malicious people who'll look you in the eye and smile, and stab you in the back for no reason. Met enough of them!

continued rational self interest — counterpunch

What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest.

You could argue, that it is in the rational self interest of the person making the decision, to save the rainforest, because they themselves (or at least their grandchildren) will be affected negatively by the destruction.

But look at the world! These decisions ARE being made for the worse. Corruption is a norm.
Either actual people are not your model person pursuing rational self interest and instead cling to irrational self interest.
Or indeed capitalist self interest has no connection to "the good of humanity" and continued rational self interest, as you put it, works towards some equilibrium, which has absolutely no connection to a flurishing society, and therefore can neither guarantee, nor even stop itself from attacking this ideal of humanity.

So I will be the pessimist I am:
Let's say you do convince people in power to agree to your magma project, through showing them, that it has monetary value as well and investments are made, to pay for the technology.
There will be competition between countries, possibly between corporations, to get the most out of the operation. One entity has to invest tremendously to develop the knowledge and technology and all others will try to benefit from the investment.

Even without bad intentions, high economic pressures lead to hastily decisions.
I heard somewhere that Tschernobyl happend due to lack of financial interest in paying for good securities of the system.
Imagine systems operating on magma. Security would take tremendous costs, which are factors, most people in charge will try to cut, by downplaying. And I sencerely can not imagine, what a catastrophe in this field would look like.

If a capitalist system manages to almost destroy the world, just by producing CO2, with the implications only recognized decades later, innovative science might well be the only saviour.
But it will also always be the next tool the capitalist system is ready to abuse.

We are an intelligent species, and I'm quite proud of what has been wrought from the bare earth by what seems to me, extraordinary intelligence and effort. — counterpunch

Compared to what? Of all the intelligent beings that may occupy The Universe, let's just say that we're probably not near the top of the class. Our intelligence doesn't have a great deal to show for itself other than various forms of gadgetry (IMO)

I get your point, but it goes to the occurrence of intellectual intelligence and the ability to form forward facing strategies for survival. Man is by nature - outsmarting nature, because in lieu of claws, sharp teeth and the ability to run very fast, he lives by his wits. Intelligence is his niche. All this is wrought from the earth by intelligence. — counterpunch

Sounds like you're a homer (a term given to a person who has an overly-optimistic appreciation of their home sports team). For another sports (baseball) reference, it's man v. Nature, and its the top of the ninth inning. It's not looking good for the visitors (man), as Nature has a million run lead, and Sandy Koufax on the mound for Nature (and happens to be pitching a perfect game).

The final three batters to face Koufax are first, Joe the Politician, who doesn't even know which end of the bat to hold, Betty the CEO, who finally broke the glass ceiling but has no skills other than stabbing men in the back, and finally, Yvonne, the neo-Marxist liberal who is so busy complaining that it is doubtful whether she'll even make it to plate.

Several million years from now, if you made of list of the contributors to life on this planet, I believe we might be listed somewhere between the cockroaches (give them their due for longevity) and the ants (kudos for persistence). Or perhaps not quite so high on the list.

What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest.

You could argue, that it is in the rational self interest of the person making the decision, to save the rainforest, because they themselves (or at least their grandchildren) will be affected negatively by the destruction.

But look at the world! These decisions ARE being made for the worse. Corruption is a norm.
Either actual people are not your model person pursuing rational self interest and instead cling to irrational self interest.

Or indeed capitalist self interest has no connection to "the good of humanity" and continued rational self interest, as you put it, works towards some equilibrium, which has absolutely no connection to a flurishing society, and therefore can neither guarantee, nor even stop itself from attacking this ideal of humanity.

So I will be the pessimist I am:
Let's say you do convince people in power to agree to your magma project, through showing them, that it has monetary value as well and investments are made, to pay for the technology.
There will be competition between countries, possibly between corporations, to get the most out of the operation. One entity has to invest tremendously to develop the knowledge and technology and all others will try to benefit from the investment.

Even without bad intentions, high economic pressures lead to hastily decisions.
I heard somewhere that Tschernobyl happend due to lack of financial interest in paying for good securities of the system.
Imagine systems operating on magma. Security would take tremendous costs, which are factors, most people in charge will try to cut, by downplaying. And I sencerely can not imagine, what a catastrophe in this field would look like.

If a capitalist system manages to almost destroy the world, just by producing CO2, with the implications only recognized decades later, innovative science might well be the only saviour.
But it will also always be the next tool the capitalist system is ready to abuse. — Johannes Attenkofer

What is your understanding of rational self interest?
I would argue, if you can make money from turning rainforest into farmland, while you can't make money from the rainforest reducing CO2 (which has value to us humans, even though it is not represented monetarily), it is the only rational self interest of anyone in the position to make the decision, to indeed do the shortsided thing and destroy the rainforest. — Johannes Attenkofer

Were there significant quantities of clean energy available, with which to desalinate water to irrigate land, while at the same time laws prohibit burning the rainforest; then it wouldn't be in someone's rational self interest to burn the rainforest. It would probably be easier and cheaper overall, to irrigate the desert to grow crops, and that's what this is about - creating overall conditions that align rational self interest and sustainability. It's not capitalism per se, that's the problem, but rather the context within which capitalism occurs. Currently, pollution is an externality, but with limitless clean energy - not necessarily competing directly with fossil fuels right away, such externalities can be internalised, without being internalised.

Compared to what? — synthesis

Good question. I'm really struggling to answer it. I appreciate it's not the meat of your post, but I'm kind of hung up on it. That's a head scratcher. How can I quantify human intelligence in the cosmic scheme of things, with no other intelligent species to compare it to? Is it sufficient that I'm writing this on a laptop, sending a wi-fi signal to a router connected to fibre optic cables, running to a junction box, to a larger bundle of fibres, connected to a satellite dish, sending a signal bouncing off a satellite, and by reverse of all above and some mutually shared software, I'm able to ask, isn't it obvious we're intelligent? No? If you will ask stupid, incredibly difficult to answer questions - you will get an answer. Eventually.

laws prohibit burning the rainforest — counterpunch

creating overall conditions that align rational self interest and sustainability. It's not capitalism per se, that's the problem, but rather the context within which capitalism occurs. — counterpunch

I can fully agree with that notion: The self interest lies always within the context of the worlds response to it.
It becomes your self interest to not burn down the rainforest, because doing so would give you the legal and financial problem of breaking the law.

I honestly think though, that skipping over the pragmatic details leaves us missing the exact points which doom our utopias to fail:
Who is passing the law, who is imposing the law?

And I think this kind of brings it back to your initial question.
Why did the church prevail, while critics could be silenced (even though they were more truthful)?

It is always those with (political) power, who make these decisions.
Whichever means of power this may be,

• be it visibly holding leadership qualities within a small tribe of humans,
• having the justification of a god (believed in by most) on your side,
• or having the financial means (in money everyone accepts)
  etc.

In the very end, it will boil down to plain physical force, i.e. man-power, which can be bought with all of the above.

Don't get me wrong:
I don't think power in itself is the problem. Some institution has to be in power to make a decision, this is inherent to making such large-scale decisions.

My problem is:
I see no inherent connection between the process by which an entity gains power over and the interest of humanity. The appearence of such a connection is forced upon the world through democracy, when in actuality there is just a link between the two, initialised through a medium (public perception of parties and people leads the public to cast their vote).

But precisely because it is not inherent, but dependent on a human-developed system, it allows for exploitable failings (invisible corruption; the politicians focus on boosting public image instead of being authentically the best choice).

Now here's my pessimism applied to your comment:

laws prohibit burning the rainforest — counterpunch

This comment suggests, you seem to have a quite robust trust in our democracy.
My argument is: If it initially lies within my rational self interest, that I should burn down the rainforest for financial gain, seeing that the law is about to get passed, it must also be my rational self interest to stop the law from being passed.
Now obviously, if I have no power to do so, there is nothing to be done and I must except, that it is no longer profitable to burn it down.

Unfortunately, and this is what we are witnessing on all levels of industry and government, I am NOT powerless in that situation, if I have the means of power, to pursuade lawmakers.

Virtuous lawmakers will not give in to corruption, but already 2 mechanisms of my democracy failed, even before I start bribing:

• Lawmakers are in that position, not because they ARE virtuous, but because they SEEM virtuous or at least appealing to the public. (Obviously, actually virtuous people seem virtuous most of the time as well, but it is precisely not a requirement for being perceived as such.)
• We are blind to what goes on in back-door meetings, we could not pay attention about to whom we are giving power, if we wanted to, hence, we can not easily replace people who WOULD take bribes.

This leaves me, the briber, with enough bribable delegates to stop anything from passing, which would lessen my rational self interest.

If the bribe costs me more than the loss through the law, I will let the law pass, that is simple economics.

But you see, there is no inherent connection between rational self interest and truth or good.
(though, no inherent connection to evil either)

And even in the artificial connection you propose,

creating overall conditions that align rational self interest and sustainability. — counterpunch

the entity tasked with creating those conditions is itself only a tool to anything with the most power. And if power can be bought because of current self interests, then self interests become self sustaining, in that they will never allow to be regulated away unless even greater power replaces them.

This is also my explaination for your OP question.
Events in human history happen, not BECAUSE something is truthful or good,

Clerk: "Because Galilei spoke truth, we shall now all change our focus."

but because they are necessitated by the biggest current power

Clerk: "Whatever this guy says undermines my intellectual influence, so I will work to suppress it."

.
In a case, where truth is the strongest power in convincing, as with an obvious lie, it will prevail.

Clerk: "Whoever listens to Galileis words will be struck by lightning!"
Me: "I heard what Galilei said. Eventhough I trusted the clerk, he must be wrong here."

But it is precisely not BECAUSE it is true, that it prevailed, but because it had the POWER to convince.
But there simply is nothing to take power away from a heavily convincing or even unfalsifyable falsehood.


To come back to your formulations of a better world.
I understand, you might see from the outside looking in, new, even stronger interests could be found in other fields. If the oil or tech or coal mogul invested in irrigating the desert, he could become wealthier, such that his bribs against environmental laws financially wouldn't pay.
For one, I'm not qualified to check the reality of that.
My take: When a huge investment in land and technology has already been made, we see coorporations rather invest as much as necessary (which seems to be little enough) in fighting legislation than in rebuilding their entire industry/ building a new one (which from my completely unprofessional idea seems to have to be a lot).

That is to say: Outdated entities stay with us, because they have lived and are fighting to stay alive.
If you really want them gone, you'd have to kill them.

I don't yet know what that last sentence means, but it seems to be correct for the metaphor.

I'm able to ask, isn't it it's obvious we're intelligent? No? If you will ask stupid, incredibly difficult to answer questions - you will get an answer. Eventually. — counterpunch

Stupid? Compared to what? :)

Perhaps if you could gather up the most intelligent species out there, you might find that we don't stack up too high.

Not only that, but I would like to suggest that because of our intelligence, we don't even stack up very high with many (if not most) species in our own neighborhood.

I believe that you (and almost everybody else) waaaaaaaaaaaay over-rate intelligence. Give me adaptability (any day) over intelligence. After all, look at what we do with our ability to do things creatively. The average person out there believes that nirvana is a McMansion, a Ferrari, and plenty of fatty, salty, sugary food.

Aren't we the intelligent ones!

Compared to what? — synthesis

Other animals, inherent complexity, other people, the progress of civilisation, survivability, and imagined absolute intellect - I think, describe the axis by which I gauge human intelligence. It's not a question I've asked before. I have taken it as self evident that we are an intelligent species.

Johannes,

Welcome to the forum. I haven't seen you around before - and now here you are, suddenly, and at such great length. I'm very pleased my ideas have you so excited that you can't shut up about them, but your posts are too much for me to respond to. Sorry.

Thank you very much for the welcome! :blush:

Yes, it was my first day, I might have gotten caught up in trying to cram my whole world view in there. :sweat:
I must say, from what I've seen, this forum seems like a very healthy place to expose your ideas to others and have enlightening discussions. I guess, I'll get around to the customs, adequate lengths and such eventually.
So, I guess, till our next encounter. Hihi

Thank you very much for the welcome! :smile: — Johannes Attenkofer

You are welcome for the welcome!

I have taken it as self evident that we are an intelligent species. — counterpunch

Most people have. It's sort of like we are made in God's image. Talk about self-flattery.

Again, I get it that perhaps we are the "most intelligent species on this planet," but only if we use our own metrics. If you study Nature (and particularly observe other species), it becomes difficult to believe that we are better suited to our environment. Just watching ants alone is amazing. Those little critters got it figured out!

I've always kind of thought that one should get the simple stuff right before they move on to the more complex. Man has not done this well.

Most people have. It's sort of like we are made in God's image. Talk about self-flattery. — synthesis

Is it arrogant to suggest we're smart enough to survive? I don't think so. It's well within our capabilities. We have knowledge of the threat, and the technology to obviate it. We have the resources, skills, industrial capacity and systems of monetary exchange - all of which will be disrupted by the climate and ecological crisis. We have to act in anticipation of this threat, and maybe that is the real IQ test.

Again, I get it that perhaps we are the "most intelligent species on this planet," but only if we use our own metrics. If you study Nature (and particularly observe other species), it becomes difficult to believe that we are better suited to our environment. Just watching ants alone is amazing. Those little critters got it figured out! — synthesis

Ants are not afflicted with intellectual intelligence. Ants exhibit the behavioural intelligence of 150 million years of evolution. It's amazing to look at them and wonder where exactly the apparent intelligence resides, but it's not more amazing really than to consider one's own complex biological processes, functioning subconsciously, and in that sense - human intellect too is built upon the behavioural and physiological intelligence of organisms, created by testing organisms in relation to the reality of the environment. And if you're wrong, you're gone.

I've always kind of thought that one should get the simple stuff right before they move on to the more complex. Man has not done this well. — synthesis

We've misapplied technology, basically because we didn't recognise science as a significant truth; but used said science in pursuit of ideologically defined ends. Perhaps understandably so, but with the benefit of 300 years of hindsight, theoretically - an error. Ideally, we might have done differently, and we can learn from that imagined ideal.

Human beings are afflicted with intellectual intelligence, and it's my contention that we have to be intellectually correct to reality to survive - at least insofar as is necessary to survive. Thinking in these terms, it seems more possible we might survive - for I would suggest it implies a rationale for application of technologies necessary to survival; a rationale that can be adopted, because it can be legitimately limited in its implications to that which is necessary to survival.

Human beings are afflicted with intellectual intelligence, and it's my contention that we have to be intellectually correct to reality to survive - at least insofar as is necessary to survive. Thinking in these terms, it seems more possible we might survive - for I would suggest it implies a rationale for application of technologies necessary to survival; a rationale that can be adopted, because it can be legitimately limited in its implications to that which is necessary to survival. — counterpunch

I believe affliction is an appropriate characterization of human intelligence. People think they know what they cannot know, so they go about things ass-backwardly. If people could only use their intelligence like the rudimentary tool it is, we would be a lot better-off.

Imagine believing that we can understand something of infinitesimal complexity when our system is little more advanced than any of our predecessors who mixed all kinds of notions and potions in their intellectual cauldron and called it "knowledge," as well.

This is interesting.

People think they know what they cannot know, so they go about things ass-backwardly. — synthesis

I've considered this at length, and it's not that we go about things ass backwardly, but are backwardly oriented in our regard for the Creator at the beginning of time. Intelligence is embodied in culture, man looks to - to reconcile his plans with the existing order. As a consequence of power relations religions tend to construe people as devolving from the presence and perfection of the Creator - and this inspires a lot of anti-human rhetoric masquerading as morally righteous modesty with regard to knowledge.

I look around and see civilisation about me, functional and illuminated - and I see something different. I see the intelligence and effort it took to build all this, and project that onto the future - and I see no good reason beings smart enough to build all this would not want to continue to prosper indefinitely.

I have told Dave Pearce directly I think his arguments play into accusations of the arrogance of science, so don't worry, I'm not talking behind his back.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/523639

I agree with the conservatives. That's some scary stuff. I too believe science should be regulated in its use, but regulated in relation to science as an understanding of reality, understood by the moral being. At least ideally! Our relationship to science and technology is far from the ideal, but we can think in ideal terms, and in doing so can envisage a prosperous sustainable future. It's there - and maybe all it needs is for someone to reach for it.

I look around and see civilization about me, functional and illuminated - and I see something different. I see the intelligence and effort it took to build all this,and project that onto the future - and I see no good reason beings smart enough to build all this would not want to continue to prosper indefinitely. — counterpunch

cp, I do realize your methodology involves some serious projection, but consider the following...

If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place.

Most importantly, if you do what you can to take care of the present, somehow the future seems to take care of itself, no?

'What the hell is wrong with you?' — counterpunch

my main problem is that I see what is. Not what could be, what was, what might be, etc. All the possibilities are grand, and very easy to get caught up in, so...don't do that. Look at what is:

Our climate has gone to shit. Maybe it was going there anyway, geologically we know it heats up and then cools down in a cycle, and yes, it was on a heat up cycle, although the scientific consensus is that humans increased the rate of heating substantially. Not a selling feature for our intelligence; smart enough to do it, too stupid to realize we shouldn't.

Our population continues to increase, despite the number of starving people out there. Argue as you like about having enough food to feed them; they are starving anyway. Smart enough to make the food, too stupid to deliver it. Again, doesn't speak well for species intelligence.

Death is unavoidable to the individual. Doesn't matter who you are, where you live, or what you choose to do; you are going to die. Yet, we call most deaths "preventable". Um, NO. End of story. Delayable, maybe. So... Smart enough to create language; too stupid to use it correctly. Just pathetic.

The list is nearly endless and I will not bore anyone further by providing further examples.

Can humanity ensure its future through technology and intelligence? I sincerely doubt it. However, as I watch some asshole swerve to rundown a porcupine that is walking along the side of the highway I hope with everything I have that we can't. We don't deserve to.

If you are indeed science-oriented, then you understand that using the past to predict the future (other than long-term trends, perhaps) is a slippery slope indeed. Much of what will determine the future has yet to take place. Most importantly, if you do what you can to take care of the present, somehow the future seems to take care of itself, no? — synthesis

No! As I said earlier, we have to act in anticipation of the threat. Climate change will disrupt the economy - undermining our ability to address it. I can show that revolutions in energy production have preceded every great leap forward for human civilisation. Yet rather than leap forward, the prevailing plan seems to be to back down - tax this, stop that, pay more, have less. It will not work.

I am science oriented, and in those terms - it follows from the second law of thermodynamics that we need more energy, not less. To maintain any ordered state requires the expenditure of energy. The world could develop that energy from magma - and; do you not see the advantage of attacking the problem from the supply side - it would not be necessary to stop this, tax that, pay more and have less - to address climate change. All the social, political and economic turmoil a 'limits to resources' green approach implies can be sidestepped; because in fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and the technology exists to capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We could be much wealthier in future - and free from guilt by design.

my main problem is that I see what is. Not what could be, what was, what might be, etc. All the possibilities are grand, and very easy to get caught up in, so...don't do that. — Book273

I don't know what 'all the possibilities' refers to. I see a slim chance for a very particular, enormously beneficial possibility - that is, harnessing massive clean energy by drilling close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, lining the bore holes with pipes, and pumping water through to produce steam to drive turbines to produce massive amounts of clean electricity. It's a little 'out there' I guess, but I think it is viable from a technological standpoint. In my view, the molten interior of the earth is the only source of clean energy large, reliable and concentrated enough to meet our needs - plus, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. We cannot do all that on wind and/or solar power. It's not enough to take the edge off our carbon emissions. I'm suggesting we attack climate change and defeat it. It's an unlikely possibility, I accept that - but it would work.