The verdict is still out on harm, — James Riley
This ad from the plastics industry was in today's Washington Post — Bitter Crank
I see acts of kindness and generosity all over
— Xtrix
Simply declaring greed as central to human nature is a mistake
— Xtrix
There are some obvious reasons— mostly money
— Xtrix
So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool
We just have to educate and organize?But the issue of climate change, like other issues, should still be much higher on our priorities. We cannot act on it unless we acknowledge and prioritize it— however we then go on to contribute to solving it. We should be educating more people, organizing with others, making climate change an essential voting issue, and demanding appropriate funding to transition to renewables and help fortify the country from effects that are already locked in. All this is achievable, if people pay attention and lose their hopelessness. — Xtrix
Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do?
I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan
Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan
You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll: — Janus
There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population. — Xtrix
So we are going to vote Big Oil out of business? The higher ups are already working on "Smart Cities"...all this other 2030 initiative stuff. I don't know the details. But if you look around, there seems to be a consensus among those in power that there are, and have been, plans underway to induce a fourth industrial revolution.Voting for those who agree with you is better than trying to save the world by saving a gallon of gas. Voting to force everyone else to comply is good. They don't have a "right" to fuck the planet. We can tread on them if they are treading on us. — James Riley
Well, I like to exaggerate a bit for affect. I'm sure many people benefit from this site.This is a rather pathetic set of assumptions and attitude. It's one thing to be lazy and not to care; it's another to be proudly parading that attitude as an example to others. You don't know what the people who post on here do or do not do regarding the global warming issue. You also don't know how many people who don't themselves contribute read and and are influenced by what they read on this site. :roll: — Janus
I doubt our vote really counts for much unless Big Oil (etc) already agreed ahead of time... — Yohan
We just have to educate and organize?
Sounds simple enough.
So should each of us try to organize groups in our towns or cities? (or find and join)
Demand our mayors and governors and local business leaders participate in meetings? (or maybe they are already and we need to join in) — Yohan
Do you really think anybody on this forum is going to do anything other than talk about what we all need to do? — Yohan
I have sold my soul to complacency.
I know I ain't gonna do squat. I think its better to be honestly lazy than to pretend to care about climate change, or any of these other issues. True caring about real issues is proven by doing, not by talking on internet forums. Nobody serious about in-acting change would come here to initiate that start. This is where people come to kill time. — Yohan
And to work out arguments. I don't think anyone is going to change anyone's mind here. But it's better to engage and work out anticipatory argument in your own head, with the help of others, for use where it does count: representatives, community organizing, etc. — James Riley
There’s a much stronger case for eliminating capitalism over reducing population.
— Xtrix
As I understand it the planet cannot sustain both important habitats, soils, fisheries and aquifers and a human population of more than about 2% of the present population. And that would be one of the more conservative estimates. This is simply a question of resources and their sustainable use; I can't see how politics is going to make any difference to that basic equation. — Janus
Quote from World Economic Forum — Yohan
This is an excellent point and, now that you articulated it, I realize this is definitely a big reason for my participation here. It helps me hone my arguments and familiarize myself with counter-arguments. Most of the counter-arguments are so often idiotic it makes it really an exercise in controlling my temper than anything else, but there have been several which have been worthwhile (although almost never in the political realm). — Xtrix
Where do you get the 2% number? — Xtrix
Should have been 12%, now amended. That said, one article I read claimed that only about 200,000.000 could be supported using organic farming methods. Petrochemical based fertilizers destroy the micro-organisms in soil, and so are long-term unsustainable. I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus
I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus
200m is too many for me. Unless they are all attractive women. — James Riley
I agree with you about the wastage in the US. I believe we Australians per capita are slightly worse than the US for CO2 emissions, and there are quite a few countries that are way worse. As far as production of waste goes Canada is the worst, the US third after Bulgaria, and Australia is not in the top ten. — Janus
I don't know how you envisage supporting a growing population in anything like the level of prosperity we (in the developed nations) currently enjoy in a world of diminishing resources. — Janus
If you can’t aspire to ever-increasing material prosperity, which is what the industrial revolution and the idea of progress has brought, then what do you aspire to? That’s why I think a suitable social and personal philosophy has to be discovered. — Wayfarer
I suspect this is what's behind the growing minimalism movement (which like anything else has also been hijacked by posers). I've been practicing a form of this for around 30 years. — Tom Storm
Here's an instance where I should just ignore a question that is basically incoherent, but I won't.
(1) Being "money-minded" is not the same as being generous -- that's unrelated, not what I said or implied, and basically out of nowhere.
(2) What I was talking about with "mostly money" is taking out of context and was in response to a prior post about the reasons for why media isn't covering the story of climate change as well as they should. I mentioned money, because media is sponsored mainly by advertisers. The larger the audience, the more money per advertisement. If the stories don't get a large audience, or enough eyes or clicks, then there's less money to be made. I mentioned that as ONE reason, among others.
If you have nothing worthwhile left to say, it's not imperative to continue talking for its own sake. — Xtrix
I'm sorry but it was you who brought up money as a/the reason why climate activists have slipped up in their mission to get the movers and shakers of the world to act.
When I ran with that and took it to its logical conclusion - greed - you object. That's odd and, might I add, incoherent. — TheMadFool
The simple fact is climate change, suppose it's true, hasn't produced the desired effect at the level of society - governments, the powers that be - where it could be dealt with in the right way. Why?
— TheMadFool
There are some obvious reasons— mostly money. The fossil fuel industry is massive, and they lobby, bribe, and propagandize very well. — Xtrix
Yes, money seems to be the prime suspect. It's the obvious choice from any list of reasons why there are climate deniers. My question then is, does the buck have to stop there? I'm calling for a deeper analysis of money. Greed seems to stick out like a sore thumb but then that's how mother nature - evolution - made us over millions of years with good results — TheMadFool
So, being money-minded is genorisity then? — TheMadFool
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.