I mean you could let some homeless people live in your house if you care about them so much.

A "livable" wage is arbitrary and subjective. Someone's income is not based according to their needs and wants. It's based on their ability to produce value. If someone feels entitled to a higher wage, they need to develop their skills. This is not an everyone's problem, this is a you problem.

I agree with your comment that the two are generally perceived quite differently; I just question if it's rational. Fishing is certainly constructive when the goal is to obtain a meat source, but from a moral standpoint I struggle to distinguish recreational fishing from stepping on ants. And there are definitely people who appear to see it in moral terms. — IanBlain

From my personal moral perspective, I don't see the problem in recreational fish killing or childish bug smashing.

If it makes you happy to do these things, then it's moral for you to do it. Just don't harm humans or animals owned by humans.

Take your Ayn Rand bullshit and stick it up your wazoo. No one is interested -- least of all me. — Xtrix

Should I stick up Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead? I guess Atlas because it's bigger. Ahhh yeah let's go. That's super nice. Uggghhhhhh!!!

Republicans, and democrats, are the political equivalent of sports teams. Both sides hate each other simply because they're on a different team.

They are two sides of the same authoritarian coin. They both look for ways to control, regulate and erode freedom away from the American people. Democrats take away your economic freedom and republicans take away your social freedom. I hate them both.

I long for the day when utterly selfish profit-seeking homosexuals can get filthy rich selling weed.

Republicans in particular, quite recently, are turning their back on capitalism (economic freedom). They criticize capitalism for eroding traditional values. They aren't that different from leftists economically, but are actually much worse overall because they're racists and sexists. They are moving towards fascism.

Homeless people live and they don't even have a wage.

I think your problem is that you don't have anything to look forward to in life. There's no passions, no goals, no values. Instead of pursuing pleasure, you're escaping from pain. If all you do is escape, avoid, or maintain instead of pursuing, growing, and exploring, I wouldn't want to be "embodied" either.

There's a great joy in juggling. After all, it's a circus. May as well have fun with it.

It's worth paying attention when 97% + scientists, around the world, are telling us we have about 12 years to get a move on things. It's also worth opening your eyes to what's happening right now. If you want more literature or references, I'll be happy to give them. — Xtrix

Yeah this isn't fear mongering being used to grab political power.

That’s because you’re scientifically illiterate. But I don’t care if you don’t care— by all means troll somewhere else and be happy with your Ayn Rand/capitalism worship. — Xtrix

Ayn Rand makes me happy; I think she's a beautiful thinker. So I'll stick to it.

Lastly, you likewise keep repeating that fossil fuels are the "only means of survival from the climate." Based on what you've previously said, you mean air conditioning and electricity and things like that, which is mind-boggling. The more we use fossil fuels, the worse the situation will get. Period. So yes, we need electricity for heat and air conditioning, and we need transportation. This can all be done with renewable energy -- nuclear energy, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc. That's what needs to happen. That's what we're transitioning to. — Xtrix

This new energy is expensive and difficult to come by. It's absolutely 100% not true that fossil fuels make things worse.

The more we use fossil fuels, the easier it is to manipulate our surroundings to make life on Earth comfortable. Fossil fuels are not the enemy. Fossil fuels are a reliable, cheap, and plentiful source of energy.

I don't give a squawk what the climate does, I'm not departing from fossil fuels.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7Re2WKKasI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2J5aiSHCj8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulg_R3L9Z_U

The capitalism you’re talking about — Rand’s version— doesn’t exist. It’s a fantasy. Try looking at the real world instead.
There’s no reason to believe our government can’t solve this issue, and rather easily. What’s in the way is what you’d call “capitalism”: greedy, profit-driven industries who buy off politicians and lobby for what they want. Pretty obvious. — Xtrix

Yeah, the real world sucks because people don't know what real freedom is.
I've lost my faith in government, especially after COVID. The government passes laws, in other words, restrictions. Restrictions take away freedom. People need freedom to be happy and flourish. Really basic concept.

If we have any hope of dealing with climate change, it's allowing capitalism to come up with solutions with competition and innovation, not the government controlling people like animals. And depriving them of fossil fuels, which is our only means of survival from the climate.

No, they’re the cause of the problem. They and the privileging of profit over people. You’re simply deluded. — Xtrix

You realize that's a contradiction? When people make a profit, it's because they've provided value to the economy, people are benefitting from the product.

Just some kid doing his impression of Ayn Rand. I don’t see much point in continuing. — Xtrix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElP6Xq7BHpc

Thanks. So no corrections to what I posted, then? — javra

Why would I bother to correct a straw man of my argument?

To my mind ↪Banno already answered this aptly. — javra

I'm not surprised that you find one-word answers suitable.

Do you agree with this premise? If not, on what grounds should a person’s freedom to pursue happiness via mass murder be prohibited by others? Or should it not be? — javra

i was talking about economic freedom, a freedom that is sustained with individual rights. Why would I advocate for a freedom in which murder is legal?

If you do agree, then by what consistent reasoning should freedom to devastate the world and the humans that inhabit it in the name of personal happiness not be prohibited? — javra

The world, environment, or nature is not the standard of value. Human beings are the standard of value. Individual rights allow for a rational freedom.

A really great point that Alex Epstein makes is that as CO2 emissions have gone up, climate related deaths have plummeted.

https://youtu.be/0_a9RP0J7PA at 16:55

If no one is dying, what are we so worried about? Why would we take away fossil fuels, when fossil fuels are preventing deaths and increasing people's quality of life?

It makes zero sense to me.

The higher these concentrations, the warmer the planet. This is what we're seeing. It seems like a small change, but it is having (and will continue to have) a very large effect on the planet. It's true that it's been much warmer in the past, and that CO2 has (in conjunction) been much higher as well -- during the time of the dinosaurs, for example. But humans weren't around then. That was a much different world with a different biosphere. — Xtrix

Hmm.. aren't greenhouses good for the environment? It is a "green" gas. That's good for nature. Having a hot climate like a the dinosaurs did sounds great! Maybe our climate can change to a more dino-like biosphere.

And how do you know this is all due to CO2? What if the planet is going through a generational shift, or getting solar flares from the sun? And do you really think the climate would stop changing if we stopped releasing CO2 in the air? Would it slow it down enough to stop climate change? Why limit fossil fuels if climate change is inevitable?

The solutions are already known. A magic bullet isn't necessary. No miracles, no totalitarianism, no radical/shocking upheaval of human life: investments in clean energy and research, a shift in subsidies, carbon taxes (proposed by many Republicans), a shift in investments to cleaner industries (which the major asset managers are already doing), divestment from fossil fuels, retrofitting buildings, infrastructure -- including high-speed rail and the public transportation systems, higher efficiency standards, better regulations, and so on. — Xtrix

These are pretty vague and without focus. Better regulations? That sounds so empty. To me that just sounds like more laws and less productivity

And considering the doom and gloom many environmentalists associate the future with, I think we will need a totalitarian dictatorship to save the planet. Public transportation still puts CO2 in the air, and by the looks of the science, I doubt the climate will stop changing.

Also, I'm not a republican. I don't like republicans or democrats.

It's a big moment -- right now in congress there's a chance for the use of a reconciliation bill to fund much of this stuff, which would be a good start. Republicans are trying to block it all, and some moderate democrats are also standing in the way. It seems like an absurd scenario, but that's what "capitalism" does. When congress is bought by special interests who don't want anything done, usually nothing gets done. Not until it's too late or enormous damage has been done -- which is already true. — Xtrix

Which is why I think environmentalism will lead to a fascist dictatorship. Under capitalism, people wouldn't be waiting around for the government to fix the issue, individuals with their free minds would take their own actions to fix the climate, if they even see it as a threat. The government doesn't get things done. PEOPLE get things done. Policies don't save the planet. Businesses, products, and fossil fuels save the planet. Innovators and entrepreneurs save the planet with their ideas. People need to be FREE to test out their ideas.

t'll effect where we live, as sea level rise will impact coastal communities. It'll effect agriculture -- so the global food supply, due to droughts and desertification. That will be devastating. It will effect fishing. It will effect water supply (as the mountain ice caps disappear, as they're already doing, and rivers dry up due to increase heat, as is already happening). There will be massive movements of people from one area to another -- much larger than anything in human history (think Bangladesh alone, which is increasingly becoming more and more inundated with water). That's millions of refugees -- not thousands. I could go on and on. Much of this is already happening, as you know. — Xtrix

I mean yeah it will effect us, but I don't see any impending doom. You talk like humans won't be handle this. When problems arise, people adapt. Also, fossil fuels are the greatest defense against these issues. Fossil fuels can help us grow more food, irrigate water, build new and exciting cities. Capitalism can innovate to build walls, or island cities or whatever solutions people come up with.

Haha wow, fishing will be affected. Okay so fishing affected? So what all the fish die. People can find food elsewhere.

When some lands become dry and barren, new lands will open up. Maybe Canada and Russia will become much warmer and inhabitable.

If the sea levels rise, just move. It's great there will be mass movements of people. Immigration is good.

I mean I grew up the American education system. I was fed your perspective my entire life and I believed it for most of my life.

I just wonder what your solution is to climate change. Is it enforced public transportation? Limited electricity use? More solar energy? My opinion is that free minds in a free market will come up with a faster and more powerful solution than government programs and eco-fascistic institutions. I mean what if your solution is wrong, and you will be punishing people who don't want to follow a wrong solution? Think about all the power grabs politicians can use with climate change. Climate change is a great excuse to subsidize a company that promotes "clean energy" when really the company is NOT even helping the economy or the environment.

I mean yeah there's all this science, but what are we supposed to do about it? Just cut out fossil fuels without a real replacement? To me that's scary. Epstein's point is that fossil fuels protect and enhance people's lives. Fossil fuels protect people from heat waves. And yet the environmentalists want to limit them. I find it to be worrisome.

You mean the non-scientist/climate denier/Ayn Rand cultist who was destroyed in debate by Bill McKibben years ago? Regardless, I'm not watching a single thing you suggest until you've shown you've done the minimal amount of reading required to even be taken seriously on this topic. You remind me of a person who, because he's watched a few videos on quantum mechanics on YouTube, feels confident enough to walk into an MIT physics class and lecture the professor. Grow up. — Xtrix

Wow, you're a really closed-minded person. I'm not expecting you to agree, but it would be nice if you could understand some of the points that Alex Epstein makes. I don't think he's some lunatic. He provides something genuine to the discussion – something that you rarely hear regarding climate change. With your insults and intimidation, I doubt you do any justice for your cause. Which is good. If you alienate enough people they won't take you seriously.

One thing I hear frequently in the self-help community is that the greatest artists are often the ones with the largest bodies of work. The larger the breadth of their work, the more likely they are to create a magnum opus or something popular. The more shots a person takes, the higher their chance of scoring points. Quantity leads to quality.

The Beatles, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Mozart, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, Picasso etc... These people made significantly more in their field than their competitors. Beethoven and Mozart made 400% more music than the average composer. Kobe Bryant was always the first one to practice and the last one to leave. He literally took the most shots.

The thing is, we don't like these people for everything they've made. We only pay attention and notice a few key pieces of their work. Most of the music written by Mozart we never have and never will hear.

As far as artists having an arc.. I think artists rehash old hits or masterpieces because they've found a formula, market niche where they have a "monopoly" or reliable source of money and attention. I think artists can continue to create new and wonderful things if they keep taking more shots, instead of fear forcing them to rely on shots they've already taken.

The trick to creativity is about showing up and being consistent. The more you try and fail, the more likely you are to strike gold.

Have you read the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6b7K1hjZk4

China. — Banno

That is a country.

I say we stop using fossil fuels altogether - and drill for magma heat energy, near to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. We line the bore holes with pipes - and pump water through to produce superheated steam, to drive turbines - to produce limitless quantities of clean electrical power.

I believe this form of energy is more than sufficient to meet the world's current energy demand, and the surplus could be used to capture carbon, desalinate and irrigate, and recycle - so that it would not be necessary for you to 'pay more and have less' to save the world, or feel guilty every time you turn on a light! — counterpunch

I'm all for clean, green, and hip energy if it can be sustained under capitalism and not through government intervention.

Well this is why I asked if all climate change is all bad. I imagine that colder climates that didn't allow crops, would allow crops. When some opportunities go away, new ones come up.

We have centuries before fossil fuels run out. I'm sure we'll come up with reliable green energy by then.

Yes, it does. Though it's not so much the direction of the change as the rate of change that is the problem. — Echarmion

I mean how fast is too fast? Why not just burn more fossil fuels? Oh, things are too hot? Blast the air conditioning. Things are too cold? Turn up the heat. I don't really see why it matters what the climate does. As long as we have technology and fossil fuels, let the climate do what it wants.

That long-winded rant was really good. 10/10

Why pit one against the other? Last I checked economy is dependent upon resources. When resources vanish, economy plummets. Our economy is now global. Individual nations won't be able to adapt acclimate economically when our resources become unsustainable due to lack of mitigation. To address this in only economic terms. — javra

You can't have economics if you take away people's freedom.

When you get hot, what do you do? Turn up the air conditioning or try to stop summer from happening?

Change is neither good nor bad.

It's climate CHANGE not climate destruction.

What about the possibilities of the climate changing for the better? Does the science really say that all climate change is bad? Climate change can be good and open up new opportunities.

Climate change is happening. So what? I'm not denying that. I'm saying we should burn more fossil fuels anyway. We should not enforce government policies; we should let free people decide for themselves. That's what I'm saying. I'm not denying the science.

I'm more fearful of people who will use climate change as an excuse to seize political power and eliminate our freedoms.

Freedom and free-minds are our best bet towards a bright and positive future, not government policies or restrictions.

Don't you realize that you're guilty of what you just criticized me of?

You're ignoring someone who disagrees with you and only choosing to talk to people that fundamentally agree with you. So much for not living in an echo chamber. I don't get the feeling that you have anything to learn from me.

Also, I'm NOT denying climate change. I'm saying that we shouldn't fight climate change. Burning more, not less, fossil fuels will improve our lives. As I said. Fossil fuels allow for electricity, air conditioning, and water irrigation.

People who are opposed to fossil fuels, are against a cheap, reliable, and powerful source of energy. If you take away fossil fuels it will hurt everyone economically, and essentially decrease everyone's quality of life.

Yes, I'm new. I'm not familiar with quoting on here yet.

I'll add that I'm all for tradition and progress. We should maintain traditions that serve us and throw them out when they become outdated. But we shouldn't throw them out too quickly. What doesn't kill makes you stronger. In other words, what's old and feeble should be replaced with something new, but not at the expense of your entire identity and sense of stability.

This reminds of the Ship of Theseus. If we can kill off parts of ourselves, we can transform into something greater, while still maintaining our identity.

Small, incremental changes are good. But If you change too many things at once, then people fall apart. Humans are habitual creatures, and our entire lives are built upon systems and expectations.

People who value animal life probably don't know that people catch fish and release them, and if they did they would be against it.

I think this has to do with one's personal surroundings. People die everyday all across the world, but if you don't know them personally, you probably won't care, let alone even know that they died.

When you kill bugs in front of people, that screeches their heart strings significantly more than some random fisherman that they don't see or know about. They probably don't even know that catching fish and releasing them is harmful and probably don't see fisherman that often.

Furthermore, smashing bugs seems immature and childishly destructive, as opposed to fishing, which is seen as an actual, constructive hobby.

Also, it's fascism because people shut you down for not wanting to give up your freedom of choice due to fear mongering and "science."

I say we burn more fossil fuels, since that's the only thing that powers air conditioning, water irrigation, and generally allows us to create the proper climate. Let the earth change; it's ridiculous to assume that we can stop it. I'm not going to let this new religion of the left convince me that the planet as a whole matters at the expense of my immediate environment. That I must save the planet with petty, trivial actions like recycling and turning off the lights.

Killing, raping, and stealing are all obviously, objectively bad. People who say that it's subjective are the people that want to do those things to others.

I've always seen this idea as a deliberate separation of things that are meant to exist in unison. I believe that the spiritual and material are both true and have value. We are not mindless zombies, nor are we floating ghosts. We are humans.

Kind of a random guess, but I think it's because most people see him as a psychologist/neuroscientist, rather than a philosopher. On top of that, he isn't taken seriously in universities anymore in the psychology field because his views weren't really scientific. But I do think you're right, he provided a lot philosophically, and philosophy comes before science or helps us ask the right scientific questions.

I agree that putting yourself into the shoes of other people is a powerful way to acquire new knowledge, especially about that person, their motives, and style. Not only do you understand them better, but you can integrate the positive qualities of them into yourself, while ridding yourself the negative qualities that become so clear when you pretend to be them.

Creatively, I find it helpful to pretend to be all kinds of people by imitating their work. When you copy a painting, a song, or a piece of writing line by line and stroke by stroke, you acquire a deep and penetrating understanding.

I gain a new love and respect for songs that I try to produce in a DAW. I become truly intimate with a piece of text by writing it down word for word until the point of memorization. I see things about a painting that I never would've known by copying it. When I know a work so well, not only do I develop powerful tools and skills to replicate it, but I can truly improve on and take inspiration from it.

However, it's important not to empathize too much with people. We can't actually ever know or understand the feelings of other people. All we can do is speculate, and our speculations are based on our experiences and understanding, not their experiences or understanding. So it's easy to assume they may be feeling one way, when they're not.

Sometimes the best thing to do is ask people how they feel and what they think and take it on face value, rather than to assume that you already know. Even this is questionable because their words potentially create a chasm from what they're actually feeling or thinking.

In my opinion, this is an irrational question that is dividing two ideas that can't stand on their own. Do we drink oxygen or hydrogen? Actually, we drink water. Are we meat puppets or floating souls? Actually, we're humans. We're both determined and have free-will.

There's a ping-pong, back-and-forth kind of dialogue between the external world and your inner self. They both play off of one another. And the play is continuous, constant and oscillates ultra fast.

On the one hand, we are determined by our nature and nurture. It's funny when people pose nature and nurture against each other because they're essentially two different forms of determinism.

Biology, genetics, parents, parenting, and environment have a tremendous impact on you that is outside of your control. You're automatically directed into a certain kind of acting and thinking because you are who you are and you can't change that. You have an extremely limited range of options given your nature.

I do, however, believe that we have a little window of free-will that gives you the opportunity to act on some decisions within the entire range of actual possible decisions within your nature. This little window is determined (lol the irony), by how conscious you choose to be. You can choose to operate in the world with a metacognition, alertness, and big-picture view or you can suspend this awareness and go about life passively. Passivity is responding automatically like a robot getting their buttons pushed, or a zombie only motivated by petty brains.

It's like playing a video game. Your controller has only so many buttons, and you can only push them so fast, and certain button combinations can't be pushed at the same time. And sometimes buttons become useless or essential depending on which screen or section of the game you're on. And of course, you need to decide to even push these buttons, and pay enough attention to the screen to push the buttons at the "right" time.

Without determinism, it's like playing with the gaming console turned off. Without free-will, the game is on, but there's no one there to move the character.

You play the game with it actually turned on and you're paying attention to the screen.