Then why they still trying? You can make it happen in a bomb, so why not in a plant? — Cornwell1

The short answer is, I don't know why they are still trying to harness nuclear fusion. Maybe for the same reason people climb mount everest - because it's there. Maybe because of the hundreds of millions in grant money. Who can say. I also don't know how a fusion bomb works. Let's have a look. According to google, it doesn't work.

"Is a fusion bomb possible?
Despite the many millions of dollars spent by the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved."

But here's why I think fusion energy cannot work, economically, in earth gravity. Imagine the gravity of the sun, compressing hydrogen atoms together into a dense plasma. If a fusion reaction occurs, it releases energy, increasing the density of the surrounding plasma, forcing other atoms to fuse - and the result is a sustained fusion reaction.

In earth gravity, the only way to force atoms to fuse is to pump in vast amounts of energy, to reach temperatures of 150 million degrees celius - ten times hotter than the core of the sun. This plasma is so hot it will vaporise anything it touches, so must be contained with electromagnetic fields - again, using a considerable amount of energy.

When two atoms fuse under these conditions, it does not increase the probability of further fusion reactions. Every fusion of two atoms is forced by the input of energy, and is a singular event - or series of singular events; and it's like in a petrol engine - when setting off, it requires more energy to go from 0 to 5 miles an hour, than from 25 to 30.

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.

Or you can consume and produce less. — Cornwell1

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?

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

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.

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

Here I'm lost. Less production means less energy means less impact on nature.

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

I don't think so. The goal is a self sustaining fusion reaction; and I think the 'free energy' of huge gravitational forces is necessary to a sustained fusion reaction. Otherwise, inevitably, you have to keep pumping energy into the system, and that's always going to be at a loss because perpetual motion machines don't work. I'll gladly admit this is but a layman's opinion; I cannot do the math to support my intuition, and may well one day be required to eat my hat. But I wouldn't hold your breath.

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!

..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.?

Fusion energy is coming and maybe sooner than you think

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

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.

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

That is a good point. I have not said there is no God. When the Bible is read abstractly the Jews who wrote the old testament, and I, do not have a problem with that. The problem comes with the literal interpretation of the holy books and denying science. I can say that publically but I have not argued the point with a friend who is over 90.

How the Bible is interpreted really depends on how a person is educated and that is why I am usually talking about education.

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!

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. The communist in China did not impose a one child per family policy for light reason. 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. Places that are experiencing high tides and land loss are rapidly losing the ability to sustain their populations. High tides mean salt makes the land infertile. Countries with a high poverty level can not provide enough jobs, and this leads to wars against minority groups and against other countries and it drives the flood refugees. It will be very hard for you to convince me overpopulation is not a problem. 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.

If I were king, I would command every community to measure its resources and limit its population to what those resources can support. Without such measurements how can we know what is sustainable?

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

Huh? What about the ice ages? I don't think you are working with all the facts.

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

I think being sustainable does mean less of all those things and a totally different lifestyle from what we are accustomed to. I think our values must change. If we loved our families more than we love our things, that might manifest sustainable happiness?

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

Overpopulation is not a problem...if we apply the right technologies. Currently, population is unsustainable, but that's because we have applied the wrong technologies. It all comes down to energy. You say:

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

It's technologically possible to desalinate water to irrigate land to produce food. The problem is the energy cost of doing so. Had we developed magma energy from the 1980's onward, we'd now have limitless clean energy to spend, and so population wouldn't be a problem. Blaming the existence of people opens the door to nightmares. It demeans us all; and is perfectly hypocritical - for surely, you assert your right to exist. So you imply someone else should sacrifice their existence for you. And just so, you say:

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

Why do you suppose it's the poor who are excess to rerquirements? Surely it's you, with your two houses, each with a three car garage, jetting off on three foriegn holidays every year - that's more of a problem in terms of sustainability than some homeless guy. It's your lifestyle that's unsustainable, not his! We need to apply the technologies to sustain your lifestyle - starting with magma energy!

First off, you really don't know if those beautiful butterflies are not behind the recent spate of extreme weather events. — Agent Smith

I know the butterflies didn't conspire... Is it the butterfly conspiracy we are witnessing?

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

So this is the kind of thinking I am against.
You: A state of affairs must exist whereby joys exist.
Me: A state of affairs of whereby the violation of burdening/creating conditions for harm for others unnecessarily shall not occur

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).

So then we distill out good and bad, joy and harm.
Is joy necessary? No it is not. No one needs joy unless they exist already to need it.
Is harm necessary? No it is not. No one needs to be harmed, unless they exist to be harmed.

So then we distill some more..
Is it okay to create bad circumstances when it is not trying to ameliorate a greater harm? Here is where the real difference comes into focus.

I have explained that giving a "gift" to someone should not entail "with strings attached". Those strings being inescapable, unnecessary, non-temporary, non-trivial harm. If that comes with the the gift of the good things of life, that automatically precludes it from right-minded action towards another person. All the possible goods in the world, and all the good intentions of the gift-giver don't take away this fact. It is putting others through possible bads in the hopes of goods, is still creating problems/burdens for others, and in a sense, using them, to see an outcome ("a good life"? or simply "good must be had!").

To create problems so people can overcome them is wrong. It may be necessary for survival, but we are not talking about necessities once born, but creating it in the first place.

Yes, we certainly disagree on this, because the bestowal of deeply valuable experiences does matter (even though I don't exactly agree with the idea of "violations" here, but I digress.)

I didn't say that burdens are preferable or good in isolation, so that's a misunderstanding. 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.

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.

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.

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.

And I already said that your "explanation" isn't comprehensive. A burden is already not a gift, which is why I don't claim that all lives are a gift. However, 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.

To not create any joy that, despite problems, would have ineffable significance for countless individuals isn't acceptable. It might be good for existing people to avoid unnecessary harms that reduce happiness, but this doesn't mean that no good experience should be created in the first place.

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

This is not an answer or way around the problem I presented.

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

What about it makes it unethical? What makes something unethical?
How is unhad "good" unethical in this particular scenario?

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

Again, how is it unethical to "prevent" harms at the cost of good? I am still waiting for this other than "intrinsic value"..

Violating things such that you cannot ever get consent but going ahead with it anyways, causing unnecessary harm unto others, and using people so you can see an outcome at some point, those seem like basis for ethics. Having no one exists seems to violate no person. You just can't get around that asymmetry. One act leads to collateral damage, the other does not. It's that simple at the face of it.

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

This is just your egotistical desire. This isn't about ethics. It may have to do with some individual's axiology of value, but ok.. So? Your value not being lived out by another person, is not a crime. It is simply a frustrated preference. I don't see frustrated preferences as ethical valuations, but axiological problems. There's a huge difference. Not getting an iphone is a frustrated preference. Not getting an iphone because of slave labor conditions is an ethical thing. Upping the ante-- not seeing a beautiful work of art is a frustrated preference. Not seeing a beautiful work of art because the money to see the art is going to a bad cause or promotes a bad cause is an ethical thing.

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

Besides having no standing for the "preventing goods is bad" (for whom? and why other than your frustrated preference?), Even people who have good experiences must experience the bads. This ethic is really independent of post-facto evaluations. It is the decision to create it in the first place that matters. Kidnapping you to a ballgame or gambling with your money because the probably might be good you would want me to, is still a violation. But even more important, a gift cannot be a gift if it has the bads. It just isn't a gift at that point. You have not sufficiently defeated that point. It is something else, but it is not a gift.

It is, but you continue to ignore answers that don't fit your rigid framework.

If it's "ethical" to prevent harms whose absence doesn't benefit an actual person, I believe that it's also unethical to prevent all joys.

Again, I fail to see the intrinsic disvalue of harm that somehow negates all the positive value that life could have. Of course, I don't think that it is always good, which is why I do think that mindless procreation needs to stop.

One act leads to a benefit, the other, to nothing. That's the unavoidable and irrefutable truth that I don't think can be ignored by incessantly focusing on the harms. Creating a good that cannot be solicited before existing, allowing for the condition of all joy to exist, and ensuring the formation of ineffably meaningful experiences will always remain ethical. A pessimistic agenda that doesn't take one side of the coin into consideration does not constitute a valid argument for preventing all happiness.

Since nonexistent beings don't benefit from the prevention of life, an idea that seeks to prevent all joy also doesn't amount to much more than a desire to satiate a pessimistic need. I don't think that intentionally creating a good life that a person could love and be grateful for in many ways is problematic, even if some people unfortunately don't see things that way.

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!

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

No one is asking or not asking for anything prior to birth. We agree on that. It is about whether YOU want to create conditions of harms for another, even if there are joys. Is this ethical? You say it is. I say this is a violation. No one needs to benefit from not feeling the prevention of harm. All that matters is YOU did not create harm unto someone else. There is no harm nor foul in not creating joy for someone else, so there IS NO violation. Why are you constantly not realizing this and thinking it is symmetrical. You just look ignorant of what I am saying when you keep thinking you are trying to be "consistent" when it isn't a consistent/symmetrical case.

In one scenario YOU did not create joy nor harm.. No harm, no foul.
In one scenario YOU created joy and harm. The joy does not negate that you created that harm with it.

It is the fact you created harm, that is the relevant ethical thing here.. None of the others matter. While joy is good, not creating it is doing harm to no one.

That's why I don't think it can be a burden/violation either since nobody in the void has an interest in not existing that's somehow not taken into account when they are begotten. If it still is one due to the creation of harms, I think that the fair position would be to admit that the birth of all joy is indeed a potent act of beneficence, even if nobody is capable of asking for it themselves before existing. Be that as it may, I do think that the creation of the positives that innumerable people would love is certainly ethical. If nobody needs to benefit for thr absence of harm to be good, then I don't think that one needs to be deprived for the lack of happiness to be bad, and I don't think that not creating the conditions for any joy is ethical. Joy is isn't about violation; it is about the bestowal of an incredibly cherished experience that does hold significance for many, even if some choose to ignore its relevance. There isn't any good in not creating a person either. You're the one who seems to be ignoring my point because you wish to obstinately stick to an illogical and inexistent "asymmetry".

In one scenario, one does form joy and harm. In the other, they don't. Yet, if it's preferable to not create the harms, it's also unethical to prevent all the good, because as I have pointed out multiple times, nobody needs to be deprived for the creation of a benefit (everything isn't about harms and fouls) to be ethical. No positive or act of beneficence isn't desirable. I don't think that the harm nullifies the happiness that also exists.

No, I don't agree with that. If the non-creation of the harms is necessary even though nobody is benefitted from its absence, I simply don't think that there's any valid justification for suggesting that the prevention of all joy and value is anything other than a fundamentally unethical act that willfully looks away from that which does matter.

I know the butterflies didn't conspire... Is it the butterfly conspiracy we are witnessing? — Cornwell1

I'm merely stating a fact - we don't know that lepidopteran wing-flaps don't cause large-scale weather events. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just admitting to holes in our knowledge.

Lepidopterans cause climate change. Alright then...

Lepidopterans cause climate change. Alright then... — Cornwell1

They might! You're misrepresenting my position.

They might! You're misrepresenting my position. — Agent Smith

I acknowledged your position! Only I didn't mention it were lepidopterianticons from the evil planet Zoq...

Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. 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! 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!

Human beings are miserable, selfish, mendacious and quite often malicious. — karl stone

Speak for yourself...

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

Again, speak for yourself.

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

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.

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. I have seen men who have devoted their entire lives to worthwhile causes like charity. Some of them have even chosen to keep a low profile because they seek nothing except the good of all sentient beings. No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come.

Speak for yourself... — Cornwell1

I am speaking for myself, about my general impressions of human beings. I'm wondering why, for example, national economies were turned over to the purpose of mass murder during the first and second world wars, and here we are faced with an actual existential threat, and the most that could be wrung from COP26 was an aspiration to use a little less coal someday, maybe!

Again, speak for yourself. — Cornwell1

More like - to myself. I emailed various politicians and media organisations at COP26 about Magma Energy, and got no replies. I write about it here, and on twitter - and it's like screaming into a void. So now I'm trying to understand why no one is interested in the seriousness of the threat, or the huge opportunity there is in a genuinely adequate solution.

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

Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. They are unjust and dysfunctional. Both cause and effect and evolution dictate - if you're wrong, you're gone. If you're lying, you're dying. Reality will not be brooked. We can't con our way into heaven. Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future.

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

So the first time you've spoken to Cornwell1 in the past two weeks is now, to disagree with my post - when I'm right here? Why is that?

I do not disagree with you entirely! I think that your point about many people focusing on their selfish and limited interests undoubtedly deserves attention. As I have said in my replies to Schopenhauer1, we certainly have to work together to address many of our contemporary issues. It would not be possible to do so without a change in one's mindset. No man is an island. A balanced approach is crucial.
I only wanted to concur with the idea that there are good people in the world who do positive deeds, sometimes without the expectation of any fame or material wealth (which might be why they are not always known). Therefore, I think that hope for a better future continues to persist. I am sorry if my reply seemed to ignore what you had said; I did not intend to do so. Have a delectable day!

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

I agree 100%. Hansje Brinker, Mary Mapes Dodge's creation, in her Silver Skates book certainly has real life counterweight. There is a Hansje in every one of us.

No matter how dark the night seems, the dawn will eventually come. — DA671

But what will the light of dawn show us?

Beauty is usually enigmatic ;) Whatever it would be, I do not think it would stray too far away from the fundamental goodness of cooperation and love for wisdom that has defined the positive aspect of life since time immemorial.

Hold a map upside down and see if you get where you wanted to go. Lies don't work. — karl stone

In Australia there are upside down maps. Still they know how to navigate faithfully to the truth. Up and down are remnants of a colonial past, when the Borealis world was considered the first world ruling over the rest.

Resposnsibility to scientific truth is the only way to secure a propsperous sustainable future. — karl stone

Holey cow! So we all should bow to the tyranny of science?