it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth
— Xtrix
— Joshs
Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.
Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you. — Xtrix
“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs
He certainly was laughing at something.
“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”
“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power) — Joshs
Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously. — javra
True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it. — Xtrix
Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians. — Xtrix
This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche. — Joshs
I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me. — NOS4A2
Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. — NOS4A2
We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think). — Xtrix
According to a study published in Scientific Reports if deforestation continue in current rate in the next 20 – 40 years, it can trigger a full or almost full extinction of humanity. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Recent_history_(1970_onwards)
P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)
Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:
C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.
For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid? — javra
But how could that help??
If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?
One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable. — baker
Exactly.But it's not happening quickly enough — Xtrix
People generally seem to believe there is an important difference between intentionally doing something that can result in outcome X, as opposed to going on as usual and letting outcome X happen on its own.Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.
Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products.I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." — Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such?It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. — Xtrix
It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.
People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker. — Xtrix
I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal."
— Xtrix
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products. — baker
It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments.
— Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such? — baker
The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those. — baker
I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem... — ChatteringMonkey
I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect. — ChatteringMonkey
It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems. — ChatteringMonkey
If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing. — Xtrix
But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita. That's significant. — Xtrix
There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies. — Xtrix
But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. — Xtrix
China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal. — Xtrix
But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH. — Xtrix
This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about how the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity. — Xtrix
If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing. — Xtrix
I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. — Echarmion
Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. — Echarmion
Maybe I need to look into it some more (feel free to share sources that could educate me on this), but I don't think you get around the fact that green energy is just more expensive... — ChatteringMonkey
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) phasing out fossil fuel subsidies would benefit energy markets, climate change mitigation and government budgets.[25] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#IEA_position_on_subsidies
Also note that China is again the biggest offender here. They subsidise everything, there isn't even a real difference between private and public sector there, to the point that 'free competition' with them is not a real possibility from the beginning. — ChatteringMonkey
Brings to mind the - acknowledged toothless - global 15% minimum corporate tax that was recently in the news. — javra
The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems. — ChatteringMonkey
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.