I agree with your values, but I don't think it's a problem, mostly anyway, of us not individually wanting the good. I'm reluctant to even share my thinking here, because it's [ what many would call ] dreary and fatalistic. But what I have in mind is stuff like incentive structures and game theory (for instance, lately I'm reading Games of Life by Karl Sigmund.)

But before that I was reading an evolution textbook (Freeman/Herron). It opens with a study of the AIDS virus and analyzes how such a thing could evolve to counterintuitively kill its own host and therefore itself. It was too easy to see the analogy to humans. We are the AIDS virus killing our host, because in the short term it's advantageous for us to do so. And our reality just seems to be structured this way, as if it's a brute fact. I think our one-time visitor David Pearce nailed it with his focus on Darwinian evolution. The rest seems relatively shallow to me at the moment. If we follow the clues, they seem to lead back to the way we were made. And there's no one to blame. Trivially (obviously) that doesn't save us from having to navigate our little lives down here or justify our bad behavior. But it helps me anyway to understand the world. It's almost tautological, given fairly simple assumptions. But why the brute fact of this kind of world in the first place ? I don't know.

Or have we simple ceased to talk about questions of reasonable — Pantagruel

Have "we" ever discussed that topic? It seems to me, humankind has had many agendas, divided into many factions, and some of them were quite reasonable. But could the more reasonable factions ever have discussed this with the unreasonable ones? Communication seems always to have been an insurmountable obstacle to consensus.

And there's no one to blame — plaque flag

Here we differ. I think the problem hinges on the desire to assume responsibility.

Communication seems always to have been an insurmountable obstacle to consensus. — Vera Mont

And yet supposedly we live in the information age. So if information does not foster communication, perhaps that is a value also which as been corrupted through commoditization.

These do seem very obvious words to type, even as I type them, but they are just not realised on a day to day basis, between every one of us. 'Co-operation and compromise is the way forward, not competition and narrow self-interest.' I agree with the main message of your OP.

These do seem very obvious words to type — universeness

Yes, exactly. Reason has its coherent being in each of us, but humans are prone to living in state of bad-faith with our better understanding. And some human beings make it their business to profit by the manipulation of this phenomenon. Who would ever have thought that misinformation could become a commodity? People are encouraged to equate freedom with an absence of responsibility, when, in fact, freedom can only be realized through responsibility. And we have the modern world. Slaves to stupidity with no master but greed.

Pragmatically, it seems obvious that the challenges to the continued and healthy future of humanity can only be met through collective and cooperative effort at a global scale. — Pantagruel

Many people (probably most people) are more concerned with the continued and healthy future of a subset of humanity (e.g. themselves, their family, their friends, their country, etc).

Collective and cooperative effort at a global scale sounds like global communism. This may not work well because of things like corruption and freeloading.

You only need to look at what has been achieved in the fight against global warming to see that collective and cooperative effort at a global scale is almost impossible to achieve.

Or have we simple ceased to talk about questions of reasonableness, displacing them with a pure economics of justification? — Pantagruel

Some people may see "a pure economics of justification" as being reasonable.

Many people (probably most people) are more concerned with the continued and healthy future of a subset of humanity (e.g. themselves, their family, their friends, their country, etc). — Agree-to-Disagree

I'm sure this is true. But is it reasonable? Humanity is a species whose environment is the earth. Yes, a privileged subset of humanity can survive by exploiting the rest, but that isn't sustainable. Communism might have been one approach to achieving collective cooperation, but I don't think you can legitimately characterize the general goal of collective cooperation as "communist" - unless you are conducting propaganda. Which is what is done. Think of how polarizing some of the most "enlightened" movements are. "Woke" simultaneously implies that I am right and that you are ignorant. No truly enlightened being would ever make that claim, but would demonstrate wokefulness through humanitarian actions.

You only need to look at what has been achieved in the fight against global warming to see that collective and cooperative effort at a global scale is almost impossible to achieve. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, when I wrote my conservative MP, Kellie Leitch, to insist that the government mandate labelling of GMO products, she wrote back telling me it was "impractical." Bullshit. I know its not impractical, because other countries do it. Nothing is impossible to achieve, if it becomes the focus of a concerted, collective effort. The Apollo project is a great example. The technological achievements made with little or no computerization were staggering.

"We" are bald, semi-delusional (akratic!), gossipy primates gifted / gimped with large Stone Age brains which are insufficiently adapted to solving accelerating Information Age problems. Very clever cunts are we pseudo-sapiens; yet tens of millennia of oligarchic dominance hierarchies, euphemistically called "civilizations", have maldeveloped our cooperative instincts/habits by naturalizing the countless 'divide-n-control' strategems with which we have administratively straitjacketed or hog-tied ourselves on a planetary scale. History teaches ad nauseam that we, as a species, are incapable of deliberative self-governance (i.e. liberty) above the municipal scale, as the contemporary state of "global affairs" savagely demonstrates. I'm afraid, Pantagruel, 'public reason' is, though indispensible, wholly inadequate for overcoming cynical / sectarian populisms ... Oh yeah, also there are no "pacificists" alive for long in foxholes. :victory: :mask:

Slaves to stupidity with no master but greed. — Pantagruel

:clap: Well said!

I'm sure this is true. But is it reasonable? — Pantagruel

What does "reasonable" mean?

Surely what is "reasonable" is a subjective opinion, not an absolute.

Yes, a privileged subset of humanity can survive by exploiting the rest, but that isn't sustainable. — Pantagruel

Who said that sustainability is the result that we should be trying to achieve?

:100:

Collective and cooperative effort at a global scale sounds like global communism. — Agree-to-Disagree

Others may call such efforts democratic socialism or even secular humanism or perhaps even common sense. I don't think the chosen label matters, as much as the judgment by the majority, as to whether of not the results of the application of cooperation and compromise, is more beneficial to every stakeholder involved, compared to the results of the application of competition and prioritising self-interest or/and prioritising the flourishing of global elites and celebrity status.

I don't think the chosen label matters, as much as the judgment by the majority, as to whether of not the results of the application of cooperation and compromise, is more beneficial to every stakeholder involved, compared to the results of the application of competition and prioritising self-interest or/and prioritising the flourishing of global elites and celebrity status. — universeness

Why do you think that the judgement of the majority will prevail?

For example, a small minority with nuclear weapons may disagree.

Surely what is "reasonable" is a subjective opinion, not an absolute. — Agree-to-Disagree

Since every subjective opinion is constructed and framed using concepts which only arise and exist in an intersubjective matrix, I daresay it is reasonable to suggest that reasonableness is an intersubjective standard.

Who said that sustainability is the result that we should be trying to achieve? — Agree-to-Disagree

Is there a more reasonable goal?

History teaches ad nauseam that we, as a species, are incapable of deliberative self-governance — 180 Proof

History teaches records ad nauseam that we, as a species,are incapable of have hitherto failed in our efforts of deliberative self-governance

It seems that the whole agenda of endless minority rights (fostering polarization in a climate of endlessly competing petty virtues) is the ultimate misdirection of the smallest minority of them all, the privileged elite. The most universal set of human rights should serve all minorities equally well.

Why do you think that the judgement of the majority will prevail? — Agree-to-Disagree

I support that which I consider fair and just. Many people do, perhaps a majority do. So I think the majority will prevail, as that has always been my goal. If a majority agrees with me and I with them, then we can make such happen. Do you agree? or do you consider the majority to be unable to ever achieve such an outcome no matter what methods they use or how often they try?

For example, a small minority with nuclear weapons may disagree. — Agree-to-Disagree

Such situations can be very difficult to deal with, but in previous examples of extreme brinksmanship, (such as the cuban misses crisis, or the current danger of global conflict/nuclear war due to Russia/Ukraine or/and Israel/Gaza,) M.a.d has been the main deterrent imo. The second main hope in such situations is that the small minority you mention who have access and control over nuclear weapons are often a nefarious elite, who don't have majority support in the nation/state they have managed to gain autocratic control over. Perhaps somewhere like North Korea or Iran could be as you describe, if they had nuclear weapons. A small nation with nuclear weapons, is unlikely to have enough of them to destroy the world, but they would be utterly annihilated themselves, if they chose that action. If the small minority you describe, are in control of a powerful nation like Russia or China, then the rest of the human population only has m.a.d or hope of an internal uprising, in the country threatening to end us, as a globally dominant or globally existent species.

How much credence do you personally give to the possibility that we will destroy ourselves via such as nuclear war? For me, I think such threats as climate change, is a greater clear and present danger, but in all honesty, if we allowed either to happen, then we would absolutely deserve our fate, yes?
That being the case, I think the best option is to do all that you can do, within the limitations of your own life pressures, to help prevent such an end to the human story.

It seems that the whole agenda of endless minority rights (fostering polarization in a climate of endlessly competing petty virtues) is the ultimate misdirection of the smallest minority of them all, the privileged elite. The most universal set of human rights should serve all minorities equally well. — Pantagruel

:clap:

Here we differ. I think the problem hinges on the desire to assume responsibility. — Pantagruel

That's a vague response, but to me it seems a bit self-righteous. 'Anyone skeptical about the possibility of utopia is just unwilling to put in the work.' A convenient belief for utopians, too, no ? And not just for those who don't want to waste their lives trying to square the circle, waiting for real life to finally get here, as if life hasn't always existed as a controlled falling. The world has always and always be on fire. That's my view. But we all work in our little lives to beat down the flames. And they always get us in the end.

What schoolmaster has not demonstrated that Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar were driven by such passions and were, consequently, immoral? From which it immediately follows that he, the schoolmaster, is a better man than they because he has no such passions, and proves it by the fact that he has not conquered Asia nor vanquished Darius and porus, but enjoys life and allows others to enjoy it too. These psychologists are particularly fond of contemplating those peculiarities that belong to great historical figures as private persons. Man must eat and drink; he has relations with friends and acquaintances; he has emotions and fits of temper. “No man is a hero to his valet de chambre,” is a well-known proverb; I have added – and Goethe repeated it two years later – "but not because the former is no hero, but because the latter is a valet.” He takes off the hero’s boots, helps him into bed, knows that he prefers champagne, and the like. Historical personages fare badly in historical literature when served by such psychological valets. These attendants degrade them to their own level, or rather a few degrees below the level of their own morality, these exquisite discerners of spirits. Homer’s Thersites, who abuses the kings, is a standing figure for all times. Not in every age, it is true, does he get blows – that is, beating with a solid cudgel – as in the Homeric one. But his envy, his egotism, is the thorn that he has to carry in his flesh; and the undying worm that gnaws him is the tormenting thought that his excellent intentions and criticisms get absolutely no result in the world. One may be allowed a certain glee over Thersites’ fate.
...
nothing is now more common than the complaint that the ideals which imagination sets up are not actualized, that these glorious dreams are destroyed by cold actuality. These ideals, which in the voyage of life founder on the rocks of hard reality, may be merely subjective to begin with and belong to the peculiarity of an individual who regards himself as supremely wise.
...
In asserting good intentions for the welfare of the whole and exhibiting a semblance of goodheartedness, it can swagger about with great airs. It is easier to discover the deficiency in individuals, in states, and in Providence, than to see their real meaning. For in negative fault-finding one stands nobly and with proud mien above the matter, without penetrating into it and without comprehending its positive aspects. Age generally makes people more tolerant; youth is always discontented.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hi/introduction.htm

That's a vague response, but to me it seems a bit self-righteous. 'Anyone skeptical about the possibility of utopia is just unwilling to put in the work.' — plaque flag

I do not share the belief that utopia means nowhere. To me, this is not vague. Both Mannheim and Ricouer have much constructive commentary on the value of the idea of utopia in responding to ideologies, which are more like apologetics.

And yet supposedly we live in the information age. So if information does not foster communication, perhaps that is a value also which as been corrupted through commoditization. — Pantagruel

Not necessarily. Information is a one-way process. A teacher lecturing a class conveys information to the students, but gets no information from them. A book does the same: the student is a passive recipient of information. Communication, otoh, is a dynamic two-way traffic, which can convey information, or feelings or ideas or judgments. I don't know that information itself has a value; it would depend on whether the recipient can use it constructively.

History records ad nauseam that we, as a species, have hitherto failed in our efforts of deliberative self-governance — Pantagruel

Somebody may have recorded that, but it's not true. Humans have been capable of deliberative self-governance for far longer periods of time (more sustainably) than most of the recorded civilizations lasted. In every case where an attempt at reasonable egalitarian democratic organization was made, you can trace the reason for its failure to a handful of self-interested actors, who either sabotaged the experiment from the beginning, or tilted its structure toward the acceptance of some animals being more equal than others. (A clever monkey was that Orwell!)

"Woke" simultaneously implies that I am right and that you are ignorant. No truly enlightened being would ever make that claim, but would demonstrate wokefulness through humanitarian actions. — Pantagruel

No. All foundational religious teachers made the claim (even explicitly) that they are in the know, and that everyone else is less or more wrong.
The Buddha, for example, called himself "the rightfully self-enlightened one".

I don't know that information itself has a value; it would depend on whether the recipient can use it constructively. — Vera Mont

Which was really my meaning. The implication of calling it "the information age" is that it should have value.

In every case where an attempt at reasonable egalitarian democratic organization was made, you can trace the reason for its failure to a handful of self-interested actors, who either sabotaged the experiment from the beginning, or tilted its structure toward the acceptance of some animals being more equal than others. — Vera Mont

Just so. But what I wrote was just a more optimistic recasting of the observation made by 180 Proof. Just because we have a bad track record, doesn't me we couldn't succeed.

We are suffering from a prisoners dilemma. If only prisoners could learn a little solidarity... but alas we all have to learn it at once and some of us are a little slow. Leaders are particularly slow, because they are always looking back to see if everyone is following.

Not in their teachings I think. Buddhism stress the values of ego-less-ness and humility. Who knows does not speak, who speaks does not know, says Lao Tzu.

Slow, or lazy? We allow ourselves to be distracted from important matters by trivialities.

Then you should read the Pali suttas, the foundational Buddhist texts.

This is the Buddha speaking:

/.../"Then, having stayed at Uruvela as long as I liked, I set out to wander by stages to Varanasi. Upaka the Ajivaka saw me on the road between Gaya and the (place of) Awakening, and on seeing me said to me, 'Clear, my friend, are your faculties. Pure your complexion, and bright. On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?'

"When this was said, I replied to Upaka the Ajivaka in verses:

'All-vanquishing,
all-knowing am I,
with regard to all things,
unadhering.
All-abandoning,
released in the ending of craving:
having fully known on my own,
to whom should I point as my teacher? [4]

I have no teacher,
and one like me can't be found.
In the world with its devas,
I have no counterpart.

For I am an arahant in the world;
I, the unexcelled teacher.
I, alone, am rightly self-awakened.
Cooled am I, unbound.

To set rolling the wheel of Dhamma
I go to the city of Kasi.
In a world become blind,
I beat the drum of the Deathless.'

"'From your claims, my friend, you must be an infinite conqueror.'

'Conquerors are those like me
who have reached fermentations' end.
I've conquered evil qualities,
and so, Upaka, I'm a conqueror.'

"When this was said, Upaka said, 'May it be so, my friend,' and — shaking his head, taking a side-road — he left.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html

Pragmatically, it seems obvious that the challenges to the continued and healthy future of humanity can only be met through collective and cooperative effort at a global scale. — Pantagruel

How to Cut a Slice of Pie the Right Way

If you’re slicing a pie in a conventional 9-inch pie pan, you should aim to cut between 6-8 slices. When you make your first cut with the serrated knife, slice the entire pie in half. Cut the remaining pieces at one time—this ensures all your pieces remain the same size, while also making slice-removal much easier. If the pie is heftier or filled with dense filling, you may want to go for eight pieces. Otherwise, six slices is standard for most 9-inch pies. — Kate Ellsworth

@Vera Mont @Pantagruel

History teaches ad nauseam that we, as a species, are incapable of deliberative self-governance (i.e. liberty) above the municipal scale, as the contemporary state of "global affairs" savagely demonstrates. — 180 Proof

By "history" I mean only recorded history, which is the operational framework of modern civilization/s, no? Left to our own state-capitalist (plutocratic) devices, IMO, "global governance / unity" is thereby manifestly improbable (i.e. an intractable N-body problem).

Slow, or lazy? We allow ourselves to be distracted from important matters by trivialities. — Pantagruel

If you confuse slowness and laziness, you will not do well with this topic. Laziness is the virtue that drives progress: by making things easier, more can be done. Slowness, in this context, is the difficulty of changing one's mind when appropriate.