COP26 is upcoming, in Glasgow...deserves its own thread, in conjunction with the reconciliation bill. — Xtrix

Glad you started a separate thread on Cop26.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12028/cop26-in-glasgow-poll

As we all know (I hope), there is a huge conference coming up in Glasgow starting October 31st. This is the most important climate conference since Paris in 2015.
— Xtrix

Unfortunately, not all of us do know.

Here's a go-to guide to see you through COP26, and get you up to speed on what it’s all about and why it’s so important.

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/cop26-explained/

The Plant Paradox Of Climate Change

Switching to a plant-based diet can help fight climate change, according to a major report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which says the West's high consumption of meat and dairy is fuelling global warming. — BBC

The reason why we're in this mess (climate change) is because we've neglected the plant kingdom (deforestation). One way out of the climate crisis is to eat plants.

:chin:

Human activities have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
— www.climate.gov

Does hypercapnia (carbon dioxide poisoning) explain the chaos apparent in the world today?

Hypercapnia may happen in the context of an underlying health condition, and symptoms may relate to this condition or directly to the hypercapnia. Specific symptoms attributable to early hypercapnia are dyspnea (breathlessness), headache, confusion and lethargy.
— Wikipedia

Are climate deniers and all others who are in a state of confusion (the whole world basically) suffering from CO2 poisoning? :chin: — TheMadFool

Cave Of Dogs

I propose greenification of the Sahara desert (9,200,000 sq. km) and other deserts as an excellent and practical solution to climate change. Build a few irrigation canals, plant trees, and hey presto! Problem solved.

Also, nature seems to be doing exactly that - as global temperatures rise Antarctica, hitherto hostile to plants that make a difference, could become a veritable garden of Eden, covered with lush vegetation stretching for millions of sq. km, enough to offset rising $CO_2$ levels.

Trust mother nature to solve our/her own problems (for us) is the takeaway.

When humans and probably other animals fall sick, our body temperature rises aka fever.

Mother nature is sick! She has a fever (global warming)!

Trust mother nature to solve our problems (for us) is the takeaway. — TheMadFool

The way I see it, we're the problem. Nature will 'solve' us soon enough.

The way I see it, we're the problem. Nature will 'solve' us soon enough. — Olivier5

I don't think mother nature's antinatalistic.

You don't destroy the village to save the village. — 180 Proof

@180 Proof

I don't think mother nature's antinatalistic. — TheMadFool

Clearly she is a big fan of reproduction, but in all species, not just in one species at the expense of other ones... The key conceptual difference between God and Nature is that the latter is species-neutral while the former is believed to be anthropocentric.

Clearly she is a big fan of reproduction, but in all species, not just in one species at the expense of other ones... The key conceptual difference between God and Nature is that the latter is species-neutral while the former is believed to be anthropocentric. — Olivier5

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and [1]multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. — Genesis 1:28

[1] God knew about the exponetial character of population growth!

Is God a mathematician? — Mario Livio

Malthusian Paradox:

Malthus specifically stated that the human population increases geometrically, while [2]food production increases arithmetically. — Investopedia

[2] Food is, at the end of the day, living organisms (wheat, rice, meat, etc.) and all life should be obeying Malthus' exponential law but food increase is an arithmetic progression! :chin:

subdue it; have dominion — Genesis 1:28

See what I am saying? The Guy used to be pro-human. I wonder if He changed His mind now.

:up: (pace Spinoza)

I don't think mother nature's antinatalistic. — TheMadFool

:chin: The Bitch inexorably breeds and always devours her young (re: Earth's fossil record, supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, black holes) – devouring may be the catalyst for breeding – like Medea (cosmic entropy).

Catch of the Galactic Day: "The Anthropocene".

The Bitch inexorably breeds and always devours her young (re: Earth's fossil record, supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, black holes) – devouring maybe a catalyst for breeding – like Medea (aka "entropy"). Special of the Galactic Day: "The Anthropocene — 180 Proof

Interesting! Sad too! :up:

The more I look at the universe, just the less convinced I am that something benevolent is going on. — Neil deGrasse Tyson

I think we need to recalibrate our moral compasses - do away with the notion of good (it's a myth) and just have bad but on a scale. There's no benevolence just different degrees of malevolence and be, well, done with it.

How would mother nature score on such a scale? Did mother nature have a choice?

Like a cosmic zombie, "Mother Nature" is blind, inexorable and indifferent to Her own regurgitative decomposition; thus, She cannot be either benevolent or malevolent – "morals", after all, are only for us sentient maggots.

subdue it; have dominion
— Genesis 1:28

See what I am saying? The Guy used to be pro-human. I wonder if He changed His mind now. — Olivier5

God moves in mysterious ways. — William Cowper (1773)

6 million dead, in the most horrifying of circumstances - starved, experimented on, robbed, worked to death, brutally murdered - and Jews still haven't lost their faith.

What's it gonna take for us to come to our senses?

What's it gonna take for us to come to our senses? — TheMadFool

Immorbidity.

Like a cosmic zombie, "Mother Nature" is blind and indifferent to Her own regurgitative decomposition; thus, She cannot be either benevolent or malevolent – morals, Fool, are only for (some?) sentient maggots. — 180 Proof

Suppose, arguendo, we constitute a committee of experts. We have cracked the problem of artificial consciousness. This committe is tasked with creating a simulation universe for artificial consciousness. We're reasonable people, we are and make only ONE demand - make the simulation universe as good as possible. "Go nuts with everything else," we tell 'em, "just remember to make the universe good."

This is the best of all possible worlds! (Leibniz?)

make the simulation universe as good as possible — TheMadFool

"Good" for what? "Good" for whom? Other than 'absent negative phenomenologies', does "good" have any objective moral (contra self-serving) meaning? I don't think so.

the Jews still haven't lost their faith. — TheMadFool

Some Jews have kept their faith; others lost it.

Some Jews have kept their faith; others lost it. — Olivier5

God bless everyone! Good day.

"Good" for whom? — 180 Proof

Good for the resident artificial consciousnesses.

Good for the resident artificial consciousnesses. — TheMadFool

How would we (the simulation makers) know that?

Good for the resident artificial consciousnesses.
— TheMadFool
How would we (the simulation makers) know that? — 180 Proof

If memory serves you did complain, on numerous occasions, about how bad the situation was/is on our beloved planet. You called mother nature a bitch - telling no?

Don't change the subject. Answer my last question first.

Don't change the subject Answer my last question first. — 180 Proof

Not intentional.

Atheists (I'm agnostic) are of the view that there's a problem - the problem of evil - and that, if one extrapolates from there, implies that they've conceived of a better world.

I say I agree - we can, more accurately believe we can, imagine a better world (it goes by many names - heaven, paradise, swarga, a "better" place).

If so, given the above, this is the challenge: Simulate such a world (heaven/paradise/swarga) in cyberspace (we've got a whole bunch of simulated worlds - video games - for helpful hints). My logic is simple: if heaven can be simulated then indeed the problem of evil is legit and on point but if it turns out that paradise simulations always crash and are glitchy, this world we live in is the best of all possible worlds.

What's it gonna take for us to come to our senses?
— TheMadFool
Immorbidity. — 180 Proof

:up:

My logic is simple ... — TheMadFool

Simplistic. :roll:

Simplistic — 180 Proof

Simplistic? How would you have it be then?

I'm an (antitheist) atheist and I've made many posts arguing against the PoE. Also, the phrase "this world is the best of all possible worlds" makes no modal sense to me insofar as I'm an actualist (which means I reject 'possibilism' (i.e. possible world semantics) or 'modal realism'). Your 'simulation ad absurdum', Fool, is besides the point, even incoherent as a solution in search of a problem.

I'm an (antitheist) atheist and I've made many posts arguing against the PoE. Also, the phrase "this world is the best of all possible worlds" makes no modal sense to me insofar as I'm an actualist (which means I reject 'possibilism' (i.e. possible world semantics) or 'modal realism'). Your 'simulation ad absurdum', Fool, is besides the point, even incoherent as a solution in search of a problem — 180 Proof

My idea is too simple to be incoherent. My challenge to antitheists/atheists is to get together a team (what kind of experts you pick is at your discretion) and tell 'em to build a virtual universe from scratch that fits the description of heaven/paradise/swarga. Can they do it? Is a simulation of heaven possible? If it is possible then I concede there's a problem of evil but if such isn't possible (say heaven simulations keep crashing i.e. no programming language can support such a world), there is no problem of evil and this world is the best of all possible worlds.

a solution in search of a problem — 180 Proof

:up: :chin: