Asking this is akin to asking an individual about their personal problems — Xtrix
Not for me, though. I'm extrapolating from my own example. For instance, in terms of clothing: I buy about 5 quality clothing items per year and I intend to be able to wear them for at least three years. And once the clothes are so worn that they can't be mended and worn for dirty work around the house and in the garden anymore, I make blankets for cats out of them or use them as cleaning rags. I do this not out of frugality, nor out of concern for ecology, but out of an old-fashioned sense for making good use of things. I extrapolate that if more people would do that, the textile industry as we know it (which is a major polluter, and employer) would collapse, because people would buy only a fraction of the clothing items they do now.But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country.
This is straight out of conservative media. — Xtrix
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
The only thing I can currently think of in regard to this is that for it to stand a chance of working there must first be an ideal that is aimed at; one that most folks are not opposed to. Headaches will occur one way or another. But in the absence of such ideal that serves as a common cause for most, I can't foresee the possibility of good results. And I think this is where Xtrix's notion of a global awakening comes into play. Still, in seeing how many have had big problems with the wearing of face masks during the current pandemic, it will take considerable effort to bring such global ideal about. — javra
If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed... — ChatteringMonkey
Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices. — TheMadFool
Are we on the same page here? — TheMadFool
This is only an analogy, — Xtrix
A superorganism or supraorganism is a group of synergetically interacting organisms of the same species — Wikipedia
This is the key premise! — TheMadFool
human nature — Xtrix
blinded by greed — Xtrix
Be the change you wish to see in the world — Mahatma Gandhi
Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual. — TheMadFool
You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified. — TheMadFool
Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor. — Xtrix
Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.
— Xtrix
You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of insdiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin: — TheMadFool
I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread. — Xtrix
I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea.
— Xtrix
Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?
We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?
It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources. — baker
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy.No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix
No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions.
— Xtrix
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy. — baker
You keep presenting it that way, though, such as here:t's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. — Xtrix
No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix
I think you've read something into my posts that isn't there, though. Perhaps we need to talk more.What I object to is the emphasis. — Xtrix
Of course. Much of what goes on nowadays under "caring for the planet" is nonsense, usually intended to get us to buy the advertiser's product or service. It's also dangerous because it can create in people a false sense of accomplishment and contribution -- "Look, I have a cloth shopping bag, I'm protecting the environment!"If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. — Xtrix
I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual. — baker
I fear it's too late, that we're past the tipping point anyway.to live sustainably — Xtrix
Part of the ecological skepticism here is that these government interventions and incentives aren't effective. Laws are passed, funds are provided, projects are designed, but nothing really happens and the money somehow vanishes.Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. — Xtrix
Of course.Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. — Xtrix
I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. — Jack Cummins
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.