Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant? — Cornwell1
Or you can consume and produce less. — Cornwell1
Without the gravitational density of plasma, forcing atoms together, such that a fusion reaction increases the probability of further fusion reactions, in energy terms, they are always accelerating from zero with every singular instance of fusion. Thus, the energy input, to create and contain such high temperatures, will always exceed the energy output. — karl stone
No. I explained why this approach cannot secure a sustainable future. Poor people breed more. They have larger families. At the same time, less energy means it gets more expensive and harder to do everything. Society crumbles while population explodes, and that will not end well. Famine, mass migration, war. Why would prefer that to a prosperous sustainable future - based on limitless clean energy from magma — karl stone
The energy coming from a fusion reaction is higher than what you put into it. The kinetic energy of two hydrogen nuclei in a fruitful event is less than the energy coming out. So clever engineering can make it work. — Cornwell1
Here I'm lost. Less production means less energy means less impact on nature. — Cornwell1
..means more people, with ever less resources to share between them! — karl stone
Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1
That's one way to go, but do you really want to disenchant people who believe in God as part of their identity and their purposes - but who have no power to craft energy policy? Are you going to look a little old ladies in the eyes and tell them - there's no such thing as God? And even if you are willing to be that cruel - how do you know there isn't a God? I don't know if God exists, and I know I don't know! — karl stone
I could not disagree more. Over-population is not a problem at all. The misapplication of technology is a problem. I live in the UK, and population density is relatively high by global statndards, but less that 2% of the UK land surface is actually built upon. Globally, it's going to be less than that. So, if humans can live sustainably - there's no lack of room. And magma energy can give us all the energy we could ever want - we could deslainate sea water, pump it inland and make the deserts bloom if we so chose. So over-population is not a real problem; it's a consequence of the scarce, expensive and polluting fossil fuel energy we continue to use. It limits what we are able to do.
The geology book "GeoDistnies" talks about the finite limit of resources. I think this book by Youngquist or books by other geologists are important to understanding our reality. Also, a trip to India or China might give you a different perspective on population size and limits. And those polluting fossil fuels are a vital ingredient in the fertilizer that is required for feeding millions of people. Morocco has the world's largest supply of phosphate. Phosphate is an essential ingredient of fertilizer and I don't think I want to be around in Morocco's supply is exhausted.
Here, we're philosophers. We volunteer to have our ideas tested to destruction. Similarly, polititians and industry have a responsibility. I seek to convince you, and politics and industry that a prosperous sustainable future is possible - that humankind can live long term by harnessing magma energy and using that to meet all our energy needs, plus capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle. If we applied those technologies, we could bring 3 or 4 billion poor people into the first world economy - sustainably. The economic opportunity is vast, and we're missing it because of an addication to fossil fuels!
Are you personally prepared to go without some or all those things, or is it other people who should not have what they want and need? I want the things I have, some of which are on your list, so I'd have to say - I do mind, yes! The things I've bought employ people, who in turn buy things. The trick is to have the energy to spend to recycle all waste - mince everything up, and then process it back into constituent elements for further manufacturing. That's why we need limitless clean energy, and the earth is a big ball of molten rock - containing so much energy it will still be hot when the sun goes supernova in about 5 billion years. — karl stone
Do you really mind if there are less cars, less campers, less drones, less cameras, less washing machines, less kitchen aids, less stereo amplifiers, less microwave ovens, less roads, less fences, less light bulbs, less plastic bottles, less perfumes, less electricity wires, less computers, less experiments, less tools, less lasers, less production of useless stuff, etc.? — Cornwell1
It would be easier for you to convince me that you know enough, if you did not begin by declaring overpopulation is not a problem. — Athena
China has a very serious water supply problem, and places, where the water supply is from melting glaciers, will not be able to sustain their populations when the glaciers are gone. — Athena
Where I live there is a huge homeless population and poverty is a more serious problem because rents are so high, and none of this would be so if we were not dealing with overpopulation. — Athena
First off, you really don't know if those beautiful butterflies are not behind the recent spate of extreme weather events. — Agent Smith
I was referring to their absence. Even if the lack of a bad is neutral (and not good), the creation of the joys is preferable to a valueless state of affairs. As I said before, if it can be unethical to form the damages, it can also be ineffably good to create happiness.
That's a mischaracterisation, since I meant that they do not matter only if the lack of the harms doesn't have any worth. But no, they do matter if the absence of the harms matters. — DA671
However, bestowing the gift of happiness that one cannot ask for before existing can definitely be ethical, especially because nobody benefits from a lack of existence. There are many problems that we do need to fix, but there are also solutions and benefits that can be a source of joy for many people. — DA671
You: Burdening others, even if not necessary, is allowable and preferable all other things considered, because people can experience joy.
Me: Burdening others, because it is not necessary, is always a violation to initiate for someone else, especially because no person becomes deprived without this action. It is also creating a problem, that then needs a solution (multiple solutions as there are multiple harms incurring to that person). — schopenhauer1
I: It cannot be ethical to prevent all good.
Someone else: Single-mindedly focusing on one aspect of reality is a good idea (I don't think it is).
Therein, I think, lies the real difference. — DA671
If the absence of harms is "necessary" even though nobody desires it or benefits from its absence before existing, then the presence of happiness is indeed important.
I don't think that harms are necessary, but preventing the harms at the cost of good isn't a moral idea. — DA671
Aside from the fact that people might indeed suffer due to an absence of future family members, I don't think that it's ethical to prevent all value unless it leads to a greater good. — DA671
owever, there aren't any terrible "strings" for those who find life to be a precious, significant, and, ultimately, a more than adequately treasured experience wherein they can experience inimitable love, joy, and beauty that they would cherish substantially. And even though it's a tragic reality that bad lives do exist, I don't think that someone needs to be directly harmed for being happy. Additionally, many people do try their best to help others be happy through things such as charity. Good intentions of "harm must be prevented at all costs" cannot be a sufficient argument for negating all the positives. — DA671
It has immense standing ;) Prevented prefences can lead to immense suffering for many innocent people, so I don't think it's trivial, particularly because many future lives could certainly be valued by those who exist. Not getting the iPhone isn't exactly a "good" thing". However, it's certainly preferable to exploitation (though I don't think that people and Iphones have an equivalent value for those who exist). Thankfully, giving birth to all happiness isn't about (just) harm, which is why it can be ethical.
Some things can have more than a single element. Not giving a chocolate because one personally dislikes it is a satisfied preference. Refusing to give to someone (at little cost to yourself) who could relish it and gain a lot of joy from it is unethical. At another level, not opening a door is a satisfied prefence; keeping a door to inestimable value for many people is unethical. I am not sure why the "whom" is relevant again, since my case has always been for consistency. If it's "good" (which isn't "good" for an actual person, other than certain desires for the absence of harms at the cost of happiness) to prevent harms, it's also good to create happiness that will be appreciated by numerous individuals. I've already said that an action that is likely to lead to more harm and a violation of the interests of an existing person isn't ethical, but neither of this is applicable to nonexistent beings, since existing doesn't have to be worse for them and there isn't a universal desire to not exist. However, it can certainly be good to help someone who might not be able to ask for it themselves, and I do think that the bestowal of joy can be quite significant for people. You obviously don't perceive life to be a gift, and that's why I haven't said that it is always one. I do hope that people could see things differently. Nevertheless, one cannot impose that view onto others. The reality is that kid isn't a "perfect" curse either, since one could argue that such a thing wouldn't allow for joys or an inevitable end to exist. If perfect negativity isn't necessary for some lives to be bad, then I don't think that absolute joys are required for one to be grateful for the precious and effulgent experiences they've had. None of this, however, implies that suffering doesn't matter, because it very much does. I do believe that it's cardinal to ensure that issues such as worsening wealth disparity and global warming are addressed before we start thinking about creating new beings. A liberal right to a dignified exit might also prove to be a step in the right direction. Anyway, I hope you have a great weekend! — DA671
I know the butterflies didn't conspire... Is it the butterfly conspiracy we are witnessing? — Cornwell1
Lepidopterans cause climate change. Alright then... — Cornwell1
They might! You're misrepresenting my position. — Agent Smith
Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. — karl stone
They won't struggle to secure human existence, firstly because they themselves are mortal - so who cares, and second, because they view existence as a chore! — karl stone
They won't look beyond their own sad selves, recognise a responsibility to truth, and act to secure a prosperous sustainable future - nor see beyond, to the concievably cosmic potential of human intelleigence. They'll lie, cheat and steal unto oblivion; finding vindication in being entirely worthy of non existence! — karl stone
Speak for yourself... — Cornwell1
Again, speak for yourself. — Cornwell1
I look beyond my own sad self, though I'm not always sad. You should show some responsibility to truth here! I wonder sometimes even about the beginning of our universe and beyond. I agree we have a cosmic potential. though lying and cheating is no vindication of non-existence. On the contrary, it is a confirmation of existence: Mentior ac fallere ergo sum. — Cornwell1
I agree. Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place. — DA671
Despite the odds we currently face, I do think that there are many good people out there who do want to make the world a better place — DA671
No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come. — DA671
Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. — karl stone
Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future. — karl stone
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.