I think it has to be looked for in the human mind and ethics.what is the root disease? — Xtrix
We have to exclude of course known natural phenomena and potential dangers for which Man is not and will not be responsible. Of which, I can't think any at this moment. — Alkis Piskas
Does it present an imminent threat for the people in Colorado? I hope not! :pray:Living in Colorado I think about this occasionally: Yellowstone Caldera — jgill
We were screwed in 2019 and we are screwed in 2022. We will be screwed in 2025. — Bitter Crank
There is no "key problem" to address first, second third — Bitter Crank
There is no "key problem" to address first, second third... — Bitter Crank
we are stuck with problems that are nigh unto insoluble. — Bitter Crank
Expand & Elaborate ... please. — Agent Smith
Living in Colorado I think about this occasionally: Yellowstone Caldera — jgill
Does it present an imminent threat for the people in Colorado? I hope not! :pray:
Anyway, this is a local problem. Here, we are talking about the whole humanity. — Alkis Piskas
This eruption 2.1 million years ago—among the largest volcanic eruptions known to man—coated 5,790 square miles with ash, as far away as Missouri. The total volcanic material ejected is estimated to have been 6,000 times the volume of material ejected during the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens, in Washington.
[H]umanity is simply sawing-off the high branch it's sitting on – not endangering nature so much as endangering ourselves by accelerating the destruction of most of the natural conditions needed to sustain our species.
If the Anthropocene isn't an auto-extinction event, it is a human population-crashing event, or gigacidal process, that by the mid-22nd century might thin the post-Anthropocene herd down to mere tens to hundreds of millions of infected/infested scavengers in the overheated, desertified, toxic, sprawling ruins of our late great technocapitalist global civilization largely "gone dark". H sapiens have survived and recovered from a number of population crashes in the last hundreds of millennia, but none as rapid and at the scale and amid such a polluted, irradiated, resource depleted environment as the one that's coming — 180 Proof
As if a man had had his legs bitten off by a shark, and we all earnestly inquire what is the most important problem; that he is drowning, that he is bleeding to death, that he is losing consciousness, that his cries are not heard, or that the shark is coming back for more? — unenlightened
As if a man had had his legs bitten off by a shark, and we all earnestly inquire what is the most important problem; that he is drowning, that he is bleeding to death, that he is losing consciousness, that his cries are not heard, or that the shark is coming back for more? — unenlightened
Causal Reductionism:
Assuming a single cause or reason when there were actually multiple causes or reasons.
Logical Form:
complex cause, fallacy of the single cause, causal oversimplification, reduction fallacy — logicallyfallacious.com
~reliabilityweb.comIf you were to ask four people--“What’s the most important part of a car?”--you might get four different answers: the key, the engine, the driver, the battery. Each person thinks he or she is “right.” The person who says the battery is the most important part thinks that, without the battery, all the other parts wouldn’t function. It makes sense, but this same argument could be used for the key, the engine and the driver. The bottom line: There is no one right answer. There is no part of the system that is “most important”; without any element, the car won’t run. In this instance, four people provided different answers; all of them told the truth; not one is wrong.
This seemingly paradoxical statement reveals a misconception behind root cause—the thinking that one thing caused the problem. People use the logic that if that someone didn’t follow the procedure, not following it caused the problem; if the procedure were followed, the problem would not have happened. Yet like a car needs all its parts to function properly, a problem requires multiple causes to happen. And those multiple causes make up the root cause. Put another way, a root cause isn’t one cause but a system of causes working together.
how do I confirm the diagnosis, what's the best course of treatment, how do I monitor the Earth, as it ages, does Earth become prone to specific kinds of illnesses? — Agent Smith
We do love our analogies don't we? Well doctor, when the patient has his hands round your neck and his foot on your testicles, the treatment I would recommend is a fast improvement in bedside manners. — unenlightened
This principle is what some health researchers mean by the idea that there are social determinants of health — that effective long-term solutions for many medicalized problems require nonmedical — this is to say, political — means. We all readily acknowledge that for diseases like diabetes and hypertension — diseases with a very clear biological basis — an individual’s body is only part of the causal reality of the disease. Treating the root cause of the “epidemic” of diabetes effectively, for example, would happen at the level of serious infrastructural changes to the available diet and activity levels of a population, not by slinging medications or pouring funding into clinics that help people make better choices in supermarkets filled with unregulated, unhealthy food. You’ve got to stop the guy running over people with the car.
[…]
This doesn’t mean that all psychiatric symptoms are caused by stress, but it does mean that a whole lot of them almost certainly are. There is increasingly strong evidence for the idea that chronic elevation of stress hormones has downstream effects on the neural architecture of the brain’s cognitive and emotional circuits. The exact relationship between different types of stress and any given cluster of psychiatric symptoms remains unclear — why do some people react to stress by becoming depressed, while others become impulsive or enraged? — indicating that whatever causal mechanism exists is mediated by a variety of genetic and social conditions. But the implications of the research are very clear: When it comes to mental health, the best treatment for the biological conditions underlying many symptoms might be ensuring that more people can live less stressful lives.
And here is the core of the problem: Medicalizing mental health doesn’t work very well if your goal is to address the underlying cause of population-level increases in mental and emotional distress. It does, however, work really well if you’re trying to come up with a solution that everybody in power can agree on, so that the people in power can show they’re doing something about the problem. Unfortunately, the solution that everyone can agree on is not going to work.
Everyone agrees, for instance, that it would be good to reduce the high rate of diabetes plaguing the United States. But once we begin to de-medicalize it, diabetes starts to look like a biological problem arising from a vast swathe of political problems: transportation infrastructure that keeps people sedentary in cars, food insecurity that keeps a racialized underclass dependent on cheap and empty calories, the power of corporate lobbies to defang regulations, and so on. These are problems that people do not agree on how to solve, in part because some are materially benefiting from this state of affairs. This is to say, these are political problems, and solving them will mean taking on the groups of people who benefit from the status quo.
[…]
And yet when the plan addresses suicide, it focuses on crisis intervention — as if suicide were a kind of unfortunate natural occurrence, like lightning strikes, rather than an expression of the fact that growing numbers of people are becoming convinced that the current state of affairs gives them no reason to hope for a life they’d want to live.
Solving the mental health crisis, then, will require fighting for people to have secure access to infrastructure that buffers them from chronic stress: housing, food security, education, child care, job security, the right to organize for more humane workplaces and substantive action on the imminent climate apocalypse. — Dr. Danielle Carr
From where I'm sitting, the most important "problem" facing humanity is a lack of inner awareness. — Bret Bernhoft
Here I think it’s clear: while climate change, for example, is existential— it is, ultimately, a symptom: a result of a political and economic decisions, motivated by greed. Capitalism, then, is indeed the “infrastructure” that needs to be undone. — Xtrix
Personally, I don't know any humans who lack inner awareness. It is indeed hard even to imagine a human without inner awareness.
I don't think this is a major problem, because it is simply isn't so. — god must be atheist
I know plenty of people who recoil in absolute horror when even a mention of "inner awareness" is uttered. — Bret Bernhoft
QED, it is the overpopulation and not the economic forces that drive us to annihilation or to something near to it. — god must be atheist
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.