Only within the protective walls of secularism could Sunni Islam begin to reform. It's not clear to me that it would survive the transformation. So Islamic conservatism is charged by three prongs: tradition, the disruption of the British Empire, and the threat of assimilation into the West. There will be no significant reform any time soon. — Mongrel

If we're talking only about Sunni Islam then I've already laid out some of the mechanisms through which it can indeed reform. Presently Islamic scholars living in secular societies abroad are engaged in this debate and reform and I don't see why it's impossible for it's benefits to be imported back to regions and people who are more and more desperate for peace. It will depend on how open to reform the people are after the dust settles.

But you could ask. I don't think it's right to wave away victims. If they're brought up, they should be honored.. like, "Yes. That was terrible." — Mongrel

Without qualifying what Tom was referencing it's not possible to include his input in a valid argument. Having a moment of silence for every unaccredited victim of religious violence throughout history doesn't add relevance to Tom's the context-devoid restatement of what he thinks are the values inherently promoted by Islam.

I'm an atheist who condemns violence and bigotry. Morally speaking, debating the differences between the moral ramifications of Islam and Christianity is like refereeing a mud-wrestling match between two frail old men. I don't need to acknowledge the abhorrence of rape and murder because it goes without saying. But that said, I didn't see anyone acknowledge the victims I actually referenced in my response.

Why does turn the other cheek necessarily come up before the idea that Eve brought original sin and death into the world? Or that husbands should rule over their wives as it says in Genesis?

It seems to me entirely a matter of taste when determining which values to put over the other when it comes to Christian doctrine (and only very recently in western society have progressive values finally begun to overcome many of the ancient dogmas we're referring to).

Why can the Islamic world not do the same?

The question isn't "who was/is more violent?", it's "which religion is more violent?". It's about the inherent nature of the religion and it's range of possible impacts on human behavior across a range of changing external pressures. The difference between our views is that you believe Christianity more rigidly gives rise to trends of peace and pacifism in the people who follow it, while Islam more rigidly gives rise to trends of oppression and violence in the people who follow it, while I believe that both religions do not reliably give rise to trends either way. When the wider set of external factors influencing behavior is considered most religions can be seen as opportunistic chamelions. I view the external pressures which act on a religious public as being generally stronger determiners of behavior, which causes religious beliefs and practices to adapt to the environment over time rather than adapting the environment to it. When you have doctrines so vast as Christianity and Islam, focus easily shifts and various doctrinal aspects will become magnified as changing aspects of society call for or enable them.

Religion can certainly be a catalyst of behavior in line with it's doctrines but there needs to be real world context for people to actually act on doctrine. In order to throw a gay person from a roof, you primarily need to hate gay people, which tends to come from living culture rather than written script; being commanded to kill homosexuals by god is just an anti-guilt cherry for people who bring themselves to do so. In order to take a slave, you primarily need to want that slave; religious laws which tell you how to treat them are again more about guilt-riddance for the master than the benefit of the slave. In order to conduct a holy war, there needs to be existing desire for it, whether that be the spoils of a far off land or the defense of one's own. You can't martial religious warriors unless there is some sort of real world conflict upon which religious ideas can themselves be superimposed. "Our religion says let's go kill these people" only leads to action when people are willing to do so, and what actually makes them willing is a massively complex mix of factors which extends well beyond the limits of a page and the steps of a ziggurat.

If corporate organization and action is indeed a main driver of overall human success, how badly would we be hamstringing their ability to exist and be efficient progressors of modern civilization if we ignore their "rights".... (Just to play Walmart's advocate)...

The gang-rapers tom mentioned specifically justified their actions by referring to the actions of the Prophet. At present, Sunnis have no way to address this issue.

I don't think it would kill you to admit that this is a serious problem. And to my mind, to ignore it is a betrayal of those young girls. — Mongrel

I don't know which gang-rapers tom was referring to though, so I cannot actually give a good response, let alone try and understand any context. He just said "meanwhile in Muslim countries" in reference to the year 1095. How many homosexuals were actually getting thrown from roofs in 1095? How many children were being raped and where? What did he mean by, and what is the significance of, Industrial bread kneading machines?

What's the difference between slavery and serfdom? Between oppressing and crusading?

What's the difference between murdering a jew for being a jew and murdering a homosexual for being a homosexual, a blasphemer for being a blasphemer, or a witch for being a witch? The murderous barbarism I have referenced throughout our conversation has been justified by appealing to the Bible and God in the same ways that Islam appeals to it's Prophet in order to do the same things.

I understand that if we ignore history, and ignore vast swaths of Christian scripture and focus only on the positive messages of Jesus, that the whole of Islamic doctrine and practice seems monolithically violent by comparison; I also understand that the legend of Jesus is more morally praiseworthy than the reality of Mohamed. But why are you dogmatically thrusting this as the fundamental explanation of Islamic violence and christian pacifism?

It's a simple and easy way to answer the question of "Why is there so much violence in contemporary Muslim societies?". Cause religion: Present day Christians are peaceful because Jesus was peaceful, and historical Christian violence [REDACTED]. Present day Muslims are more violent because their prophet was violent, and any portrayal of scope or context [REDACTED]. It's a neat and tidy box.

I'm well aware that Islam is in more dire need of reform than Christianity, in part because Christianity has already undergone some reform, and also because religion is currently of a more critical link in the chain of causes of present day violence in the Islamic world. Were they Christian though, would none of the current violence be happening or be justifiable? None of the murdering undesirables or the waging of holy war, or the taking and selling of sex slaves? It can all be found in the Bible, you just need to turn the other page. The example of the Prophet (W.W.M.D?) is itself something that is highly debated and makes room for reform in Islam. I'm well aware of the Hadith system, protocols, and controversies, which from the perspective of an apologist is a treasure trove. Hadiths which depict old world behavior as holy standards can be discredited as accurate, or can be superseded by contradictory Hadith which can be focused on as more valid or more central to Islam. The very notion that the example of the Prophet should be applicable to modern day Muslims can itself be challenged (and already successfully has been in some respects), in part through Hadith which encourage reform, but also as orthodoxy and religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world naturally diverges and changes shape according to the demands of the worldly pressures which act upon it. The Qur'an itself, like the bible, has mixed messages to begin with.

Maybe I am biased though, when I did read the bible at around age 15 (new english translation), I read it front to back, so I was struck by all the lunacy of the OT before I got to the more familiar fairy tales. The prophet warrior kings I recall from the Old Testament may have been marginalized in thought and spirit, but not yet in in doctrine, or fully in practice.

Since you have yet to comprehend anything I told you, I think we're done. — Mongrel

I understand that "Christian pacifism" is fairly contrary to your insistence that Islam is incapable of preaching peace or reform, and that this is the lens through which you would have us understand the intrinsic difference between past and present day Christianity/Islam and their impacts on human behavior. It was crass of me to imply that your comprehension was sloppy, and for that I apologize, but I'm trying my best to motivate you to expand my puny horizons by actually addressing the points I make instead of just inserting a suggested reading list, an appeal to Tom, or the continual reassertion of your main position in a vacuum: the prevailing message of Christianity is peace, the Islamic prophet Mohamed was violent, QED, Islam is inherently more violent.

In 1095 you say?

Meanwhile in Muslim countries, atheists are killed, children are raped, homosexuals are thrown from high places. In the putative Caliphate, Yezidi children are placed in industrial bread-kneeding machines and fed to their parents, while the girls are bought and sold as sex-slaves. This, in full compliance with Sharia in the 2017. — tom

That all sounds awful! I reckon we could raise an army and make it to Jerusalem by, let's say, 1099? As your liege lord I demand the use of your healthy sons and will require a larger portion of the goods you produce this season above and beyond the existing tax. It will be worth it though, after a few pit-stops your sons will be more than ready to execute those poor, poor child slaves.

Start with something that you personally cannot deny, and go from there.

Imagine dropping a heavy television onto your fleshy and exposed toes. Ouch.

Pain hurts. Dropping a T.V on your foot is undesirable.

You would be surprised how much you can reason from such a basic fact.

I see the dance from the opposite angle:

Christianity does have fundamentally violent (and peaceful) messages, and throughout it's history Christians have practiced violence.

Islam does have fundamentally violent (and peaceful) messages, and throughout history Muslims have practiced violence.

(QED Christians are morally superior to Muslims???)

This is where I see contradiction and sloppy comprehension. If we rewind time to a period when both Christians and Muslims were engaged in widespread religious violence (or peace), there's no longer any sharp teeth to the claim that Islamic doctrine is inherently more violent and Christianity is inherently not violent.

You can try to bolster that argument by arguing Christianity is really really peaceful (but it's not).

You can try to bolster that argument by arguing Islam is really really violent (so is Christianity).

Finally you can try to bolster that argument by once again arguing that since present day Muslims are more violent, Islam is inherently a more violent religion; which brings us back to my current point: If we rewind time to a period when Christians are happily practicing OT violence, what happens to your claim that Christianity is inherently pacifist?

Is Christianity of old not the same Christianity of today? Did Christianity or Christians change? Is that what Islam and Muslims needs to do?

"Cultural appropriation" is such an irritating idea...

How exactly does it cause harm?

I guess the only possible sane answer is that theft of intellectual property steals the profits from hard working...... Cultures?.... Races?.... Murder victims?...

It just doesn't make sense. Implying that Shutz is stealing profit from black artists (stealing profits IS the issue with intellectual property rights) also implies that the death of Emmet Till is the intellectual property of the black community rather than existing in the public domain.

It's especially backward to be outraged over someone spreading awareness of a crime because you feel you owned the right to spread that awareness and thereby gain notoriety...

But if a Muslim holyman wanted to preach pacifism... how would he go about doing that? That's the question that puzzled me for several months. How does religious authority work in Islam? — Mongrel

Same as in other religions for the most part: pomp and circumstance.

It takes well educated, well spoken, and well positioned apologists who know enough scripture to actually win the theological debate (at large) against staunch zealots. Tom kicks a fuss about the meaning of the word "Islam" being "submission", but a clever pontiff could easily argue "submission to peace and love" is Islam's objective.

I still remain surprised that a book which records the perfect will of god as a set of largely barbaric old laws manages to save the amount of face it does when contrasted with modern ethics and progressive values. The Bible explicitly tells you to put people to death for crimes like blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, and general disobedience, and yet because some of that stuff is somewhat contradicted by some other stuff from the Bible, everything is on the moral level. Islam has many similar instances of morally abhorrent positions, but it has some morally praiseworthy ones too. The way that a Muslim holy man can preach peace is the same way that modern Christians also do: by focusing on one aspect as more important than another.

I think there was an opportunity lost in 1960s and 70s. Google "Afghan/Iranian women 1960s" etc and you will find photographs of beautiful, liberated, educated, modern women barely distinguishable from Europeans and Americans of the day. You might even find some photographs of the Hajj, which reveals women dressed in many different and colourful ways. Modesty 50 years ago did not mean the oppressive black burqa of today.

Then we had the Islamic revolutions and the rise of Saudi religious imperialism. — tom

You make it sound as if religion suddenly reared reared it's ugly head, but what caused it to do so?

What do you know about OPEC? The oil embargo of 73 (which was against the U.S among other nations) ended with the U.S exporting bombs and war machines directly to Saudi Arabian hands in exchange for increased oil production and sale to western markets. The Sauds were given everything they needed to raise their imperil flag. The US and SA both then funded and fueled anti-communist groups in the region without regard for how extreme their ideas might be, such as Al-Qaeda. Meanwhile in Iran, the inflationary effects of the embargo, along with corruption, lead to economic recession. When widespread protests and demonstrations against the Shah finally paralyzed the economy completely, the Ayatollah dominated the aftermath and systematically eliminated secular and political opposition before and after stepping in to create the new Islamic government.

My point isn't that religion is blameless, it's that it doesn't exist in a causative vacuum. The people of Afghanistan and Iran didn't simply double take between the Qur'an and women in bikinis and decide to pass a theocratic constitution, to fund and support radicalization, and to join terrorist organizations. Understanding the genesis of real world violence and the overall impacts of religion just isn't possible if at every point of inquiry the "religion did it" lens obfuscates all other factors.

And when they reply "Deuteronomy 17:1-5", what do I say then?

...you can just invite him or her to actually be a Christian. — Mongrel

What should I say if they reply "As a true Christian it's my duty to fight back against Islam which is seeking to destroy my religion and way of life."?

...by depriving yourself of the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness, then you're consigning yourself to a very bad place. It's more a warning than a threat. — Wayfarer

By reacting with modern day sensibility I'm trying to highlight the doctrinal extremes of Christianity which might be similar to those of Islam. Maybe Christianity has more carrot or Islam has more stick, but I'm not sure it makes a massive difference; there's enough stick in both sets of doctrines to go around should anyone desire to wield them. More a warning than a threat indeed!

(I don't see any parallel in the New Testament - nowhere are Christians commanded to 'slay the unbeliever', notwithstanding the violence done in the name of Christianity over the centuries.) — Wayfarer

The Old Testament played a role in catalyzing violence over the centuries, which is why this point is only as relevant as your commitment to the NT is widespread in the Christian community. In order to differentiate Christianity from Islam in this regard Christians would need to outright discount the Old Testament as a valid source of moral teaching, which is where it says to kill the infidels.

But it's very peculiar to me how the fact that violence was rife, justice brutal and education non-existent in ancient times can explain and contextualize Christianity as merely coping with a prevalent norm, while the exact same social conditions under which Islam emerged contextualizes it as an inherently violent artifact of an uncivilized age. The number of Muslims embracing the death to infidels attitude is shockingly high, but overall represents a very low percentage of all Muslims A Christian says warlord, and a Muslim says liberator of slaves. What's the difference?

I don't think you've read the New Testament. The prevailing message is love and pacifism. — Mongrel

The prevailing message is love and peace, peppered with threats of eternal damnation, and followed by death and destruction for the unbelievers when Jesus returns to right all wrongs with his fiery sword.

But you're missing the point: the old testament can be just as relevant when it comes to influencing human behavior. The prevailing message of Christianity depends on what you take away from it. You can say that the prevailing message of the NT is love and pacifism, but Muslims also say that the prevailing message of the Qu'ran is peace and love; what's the difference?

The more you judge, the harder it becomes to understand. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge. — Mongrel

I would simply have us seek comparable depth of understanding concerning major religions before we decide to judge one of them as the worst religion of all.

In UK Muslims comprise ~5% of the population, but 20% of inmates in high security prisons. — tom

Something tells me that a large chunk of these inmates "convert" to "Islam" while in a high security prison because it affords you gang like protection. I'm not exactly sure what about Islam makes it work well as the basis for a prison gang culture, but I guess it does.

And let's not forget, there is only one way to guarantee paradise according to Islam. — tom

According to some Muslims, committing suicide and killing innocent people are both sins per the Qu'ran.

Depends on who you ask?

That's in interesting perspective considering how much attention is given to the most extreme and shocking violent events and groups of the Islamic world; ways in which Islam could be better at preventing violence seem to be least on people's minds. From what I do know though, alcohol is not uniformly abstained from in the Islamic world. Some orthodox countries have soft-bans on it intended to keep it out of the hands of Muslims (I.E: you can apply for a drinking license as a non-muslim), but it is a rule widely gotten around. I'm guessing there's something not unlike puritanism that is more and less prevalent in different Islamic regions and cultures (many of the Muslims I know drink and smoke without regret). The current attitude of an individual Muslim or a Muslim community seems to be the main determinant of how such tenets are valued and interpreted.


I would rather not go to the mat in a New Testament cage-match, but as an opening salvos, I posit that Jesus as portrayed in the new testament promoted violence by spreading the most insidious and disgusting lie that has ever plagued mankind:

"God loves you more than anything else could possibly love you, and is all forgiving - DISPLEASE HIM AND YOU WILL BURN - loves you more than you will ever know and wants to forgive your sins - ETERNAL FIRE WILL CLEANSE THE UNBELIEVERS - bow down and thank the ultimate lord of lords - YOUR SOUL WILL BE DESTROYED - our savior, amen." — ThE vOiCeS

Jesus didn't specifically tell you to do violence, and he offered somewhat cheap salvation, but he none the less carried on with the threat of eternal damnation and pointed to the Old Testament as still being the law. I understand that the new covenant allows Christians to pick and choose what sins are despite them being clearly written at exhaustive length in their holy books (a good thing), but then "Christian non-violence" becomes more of an expression of contemporary culture than it does Christianity itself. If the Old Testament didn't condemn homosexuality, would we still have been castrating homosexuals 60 or 70 years ago? I say perhaps, but maybe not. The fact that such abhorrent values are mainly found in the Old Testament didn't and doesn't stop their employment in sermons which reinforce and motivate such practices in the minds of Christians at large.

So are you saying that the effectiveness of dictatorship is a function of time period (as opposed to culture)? — Mongrel

Primarily I think it's a function of certain technological and social landscapes.

Broadly, I think dictatorship can be "best" if it can bring to heel disparate groups set to destroy one another. Why they want to destroy each-other might be cultural, but not necessarily. This might not be a great or apt example, but it's plausible that many contemporary nations would happily go to war against their neighbors if the US and it's army wasn't around to make them think better of it. Ending American dominance in the world could lead to short term chaos as the world re-balances, and there's a chance but no guarantee that what we wind up with down the road is any better than what we have now. Whether or not it's a change worth undergoing in this case is too complex to be predicted.

Technological landscapes can make and break democracies/dictatorships because without some form of mass media and communication, organizing a democracy is extremely difficult or impossible. Without the ability to openly communicate, like minded groups cannot form or mobilize coherent political agendas and democracy never gets off the ground. Dictatorships on the other hand need to reduce and control open communication for the purpose drumming support for the state, but more importantly to prevent possible opposition from coalescing. Speaking in terms of raw efficiency, this makes most of human history unfit for the practice of democracy (at least beyond a local/communal level), and perfect for dictators who managed public opinion/revolt with ease; the introduction of the book and the newspaper in my opinion marked the point at which the geographically/demographically vast states we live in became somewhat fit for democratic rule.

Since their arrival, books have been banned and burned, and the newspaper is dying a slow and tenacious death, but now the internet has arrived and along with it more communication than we know what to do with. Dissatisfaction as a motivational force has become unfathomably amplified as opposition groups spread and grow over social networks at an incredible pace. Dictatorships are more at odds with the inter-connected world than ever before as they metabolize the increased dissatisfaction (what they do well), and democratic states are undergoing change when and where the current status quo permits or is overturned. It's possible that complete informational (and dis-informational) saturation will spoil the utility of the internet as healthy for democracy, and it's also possible that the desires of different subgroups (for example: an ethnic groups desire for self-determination) become so organized that we're forced to balkanize and break up into smaller states as Bitter Crank points out; but for autocratic states the internet is absolute poison to their well-being. Even the global autocracy of America and it's Western retinue is being challenged by opposition which can only successfully organize through the internet.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that better and worse strategies of governance are relative to the changing circumstances of the governed, and in the case of democracy perhaps most notably by the free availability and reach of mass communication technology.

If you have a hoard of neanderthals who can only be persuaded to abide rules via head-injury, then a brutal dictator seems well warranted.

Dictatorship doesn't have to be malevolent though, it's been said that a "benevolent king" is the best form of government because it looks after the interests of the people without the bureaucracy of decentralized leadership. A modern Charlemagne might unite us all through force and then deliver us into a new era of abundance and human civilization, at which point not too many people would regard it as a bad move. So really it depends on the dictator and on the government as much as it does on the people.

There probably is room for an argument that dictatorship is generally "the best" option for some possible social or technological landscapes, but none too applicable to the current world.

When hierarchies of power emerge in the context of feudal barbarism they inherently stabilize and reduce the amount of death and destruction that arises from chaotic conflict, because the pecking order establishes who can do what to who and get away with it (as opposed to everyone attacking everyone else to find out, to great expense). This phenomenon plays out on many levels. First within families, then within in communities, then between communities, which leads to the rise of nations, then between nations, which leads to the rise of empires.

Before each step in the evolution and progress of human civilization, we see competition and conflict which gives rise to singular and dominant dictatorial forces who consolidate power and set the stage for the next tier of human activity. We were already pretty deep in a complex hierarchy of allegiance and dominance before democracy turned up, which arguably resulted from changes to the intrinsic power of the masses such that the old pecking orders were overturned. With the advent of the newspaper (for instance), parents had less direct control over what ideas, beliefs and allegiances could be drummed into their children's heads. Local authorities lost some power to police their communities as cheap print carried criticism and stirred outrage all the way to the capitols. When the conflicts finally happened and the old dictators were dethroned, the same organizational forces which gave the people the power to do so became the de-facto new ruling force. The emergent and pulsing will of the people, perceivable only through shared mass media until it's plastic arm is raised in violence, can only exist and is only as effective as there are systems of mass communication and an engaged and well-informed public. If you don't have these things then possibly a benevolent dictator, who like a parent knows what's best, would be best

Relax. It is quite empowering using what agitates you right back and against it: clearly you are conscious of the damage people are doing to the world, why not do something about it? Seriously, do it. — TimeLine

Do something about it !?

Like what, cryogenically freeze myself for millennia until the triviality of modern civilization has melted away? Only problem there is that humans 1k+ years from now would have no reason to wake me up in the same way that advanced aliens have no reason to presently contact us...

"Hey Bill! We got another popsicle douche on the docket. This one's old; whaddya think?"

"What year is it from?".

"2017...".

"Oh... The director says no more reanimating anyone from that early in the 21st, apparently they've already got enough mentally retarded ideologues to act in the new historical satire they're producing.".

"Oh...".

----------------------------

What bothers me isn't that the world is facing trivial problems, it's that what comes afterward is sure to be much more interesting and current climates are a source of delay. My contribution is to spread awareness of problems and possible solutions as I see them, and that's appropriate for my station, but no amount of hard work or dedication will get me to the other side of them. The only way there is through time.

One question that gets under my skin is whether or not the universe is infinite.

In part because I want to know if the universe is, thermodynamically speaking, a zero-sum-game; but also because I wonder how much other sentient life is out there.

These questions aren't strictly philosophical, but since empirically finding answers to them is likely pretty far off, exploring the possibilities and their ramifications can only be done in thought and speculation.

Of late, one question which keeps recurring to me is this:

Assuming that the universe is filled with life, and that the technology required for long distance travel is sufficiently possible, and that distant civilizations could detect and travel to one-another, what is it about Earth and human civilization that would make us worth contacting?

Nothing... At least not yet...

Right now we're like a herd of wildebeests who move chaotically according to our irrational instincts and the changing slope of the terrain our movement tramples and destroys (beware cliffs). We cannot even manage to not fuck up a self-regulating planetary bio-sphere given our first taste of real technological power.

Technologically speaking, what could we offer to an alien race capable of inter-stellar travel? Maybe they don't know how to split atoms (unlikely I reckon) but why would they even need to if they could close the star gap without it? Nuclear technology is great for blowing shit up and irradiating it, and middle of the road when it comes to generating energy through mechanical turbines and radioactive steam, so it's worthless either way. Gravity is beyond us and our best method of getting into space is an economic disaster. Our computers are interesting, but data management is also not going to be an issue for anything capable of dealing with the complexities of inter-stellar travel. So what can we offer?

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced humans are currently about as interesting as a fly-ridden wildebeest. In the same way that the present day is many magnitudes more interesting than what was happening 1000 years ago, I regret having no access to the shit might be going on 1000 years from now. The more I wonder about the interesting possibilities of what is to come, the more I resent having no access to it, which gets under my skin.

Good luck finding that opponent outside of the junior leagues. — Frederick KOH

It seems like the junior leagues are the only place that a struggle between "modernism" and "post-modernism" is actually relevant. Who else is it that sits around trying to reduce scientific truth to cultural relativism? Is there honestly any serious reason or rhyme to adopt a post-modernist attitude other than the complete over-application of skepticism toward the merits of reason and empiricism?

The only motive I can think of for someone wanting to essentially equivocate science with magic, and ritual human sacrifice with democracy, is that they're uncomfortable with the moral and epistemological condemnation that emerges from the contrast between such systems. If post-modernism is actually all about better quantifying "truth", they're not bringing much to the table by hitting the Cartesian reset button on reason and gluing it down when it comes to morality.

This iteration of post-modernism reminds me of a psychological phenomenon called "semantic saturation", which is when you continuously repeat a word until it seems absurd and loses it's meaning. If a moral thinker has no grasp of the moral roots of democracy, then in the world at large it would seem like some over appealed platitude which is just arbitrarily defined as morally superior or more pragmatically sound to other forms of governance. Likewise, an epistemological thinker who does not understand the source and scope of "scientific truth", especially in the modern world which is downright lousy with science, might take the presumed or apparent absolutism of science as something worth questioning for the sake of questioning. When a rational thinker who does not understand where reason comes from or why we use it decides to apply skepticism toward the entirety of reason itself in order to test it's robustness, is that a form of irony or just run-of-the-mill failure?

I guess the answers post-modernists are(n't) looking for or haven't found are as follows:

Scientific truth is not absolute, but as it changes and improves itself it becomes something that more closely approximates absolute truth. The evidence is it's increasing and overwhelming reliability.

If we can agree on moral ends then we can use reason and observation to discriminate between more and less effective moral positions and systems as we continually seek to improve our own. The evidence for the moral superiority of democracy, along with many other moral positions we consider to be progress, is their reliability to promote a society that is not harmful to it's citizens and their happiness. For instance, it's a moral fact that in the current world collective punishment, slavery, and female genital mutilation are all practices which are detrimental to happiness and prosperity as social or moral objectives.

The attempt at complete disassociation between reason and truth is a backward slide toward what is at best a coarse whetstone which can be used to sharpen and reaffirm the merits of applying reason to the world around us. Before our more sophisticated reasoning we more or less had magic; we could use logic to some extent, but for everything else of import we were left to adopt superstitious nonsense. Using actual meteorological observations in order to predict the weather is much more reliable than subjectively interpreting the entrails of a disemboweled goat. Likewise, the outcome of a battle can be more reliably predicted by understanding the principles of war and the size, strength, and skill of the groups involved than it can be predicted by appealing to an ancient prophecy which may or may not have any basis in reality.

Until the reliability of reason oriented "truth" declines, it's extreme value will continue to stem from it's vast utility. It's not perfect, and our body of knowledge and ability to reason still has room to improve (and is doing so), so I guess in a way "post-modernism" as I have defined it here can be be described as nothing but dissatisfaction with the moral, social, and scientific fruits of modernity.

I guess a post-modernist just can't take themselves (and their truth) very seriously :) .

I think I know the bit of sophistry you're referring to, it goes something like this:

P1: Absolute certainty is not achievable through empirical evidence.

Therefore,

C1: Evidence doesn't matter.

It's a pretty silly piece of reasoning, so my advice is to embrace it on behalf of your opponent in order to show them where it leads.

If evidence doesn't matter, then paying detectives to solve crimes would be a complete waste of time.

If evidence doesn't matter, then neither do the conclusions that evidence points to.

If evidence doesn't matter, then we have no way of evaluating the truthiness of any statement whatsoever. "Injecting heroine in the mornings is conducive to human health" is just as likely to correspond to reality as it's inverse, so far as we know...

When someone questions the very value of evidence itself during the course of a debate, it's probably because they have none of any quality. Point out why your evidence is stronger than theirs and you will have done your due diligence. If someone is resorting to the old"well you cannot be absolutely certain of anything" line, just tell them "we cannot be absolutely certain shit stinks, but we don't need to test that possibility with every single bowel movement".

If you want the last word, then just directly and meticulously respond to everything your opponent says with unyielding persistence.

I guess the whole point of a debate is to see who can outshine and outlast their opponent(s ideas) while accurately addressing the subject matter and adhering to the constraints of logic and reason. It's generally easier to do when you have the truth on your side, and much more taxing when your position is actually inferior (assuming both parties are reasonable). But every once in awhile you come up against a clown so adept at performing mental back-flips that there can never be new development or actual end to the cartoonishly flat dialogue they inevitably render.

Oops, you gotta have a do-over. Has your America any up-beat rituals?

The most important thing is myself if I'm being honest: my conscious experience, my ideas, beliefs, and well-being. Everything in my life are a means toward improving those ends. Some family members and friends are de-facto considered as the recipient of these ends, not means, in that regard; the hunt for how best to achieve these ends is about finding these things of highest value.

I derive value even from trying to deriving value.

"Should we accommodate a trans-dolphin?".

Not until they can stir enough public awareness of their plight to incite the public to pressure politicians and lawmakers to mandate both fresh and salt water swimming access to all public buildings...

A bit of the issue causing controversy with this question seems to me really just a classic dichotomy with some new packaging; the sacrifice of freedom or adoption of burdens in exchange for things like safety and equality that we make in our never ending political endeavors. How much individual freedom ought to be preserved or sacrificed, and what kinds, is in some cases too complex a question to give good answers. So let's partially side step that issue by answering this question as if we ourselves have a child determined to transition, so that then we're more likely to give answers concerned with what is best for them rather than what is best for a society closer to our own ideals.

Of course then we should allow people to transition. If they are already transitioning, and stopping them from doing so causes them more unhappiness and harm than whatever kind of harm we think they are doing to themselves by transitioning in the first place, then how could we morally interfere? If I could afford it, I guess I would probably try and help my hypothetical trans son/daughter to transition if I was convinced this was actually a healthy decision for them. In society and politics we already do monetarily support various kinds of needs that not everyone has because we more or less want everyone to have a shot at happiness; wheelchair access for the wheelchair users is one sturdy example of this.

But when it comes to "accommodating" transsexuals, there aren't very many ways in which we actually have the opportunity to do so. In a way transsexuals accommodate the world around them in every way possible by putting in ineffable degrees of effort to achieve a state of "pass" (which means people either cannot tell they are trans or are perceived as the gender they present as). Once they achieve a state of pass, we lose the ability to police them because they blend in too well, and so the discussion becomes moot in that regard (transsexuals have been getting away with public bathroom-use ever since public bathroom-use became formal). The further a given transsexual is away from a state of "pass", the more uncomfortable we seem to be with "accommodating" them by not disallowing them use of a preexisting bathroom (not coincidentally, the less likely they they are therefore to attempt to do so). Whether or not a person is genuinely transgendered and not just a sexual predator in a wig is the source of this discomfort, but it is simply not reasonable to suggest gendered bathrooms are any real deterrent to serious threats of sexual assault in the first place. Wig or no wig, "women only" sign or none, predators can still waltz right in, and same-sex sexual assault (I think that's a new one) can still occur. If you are afraid that you or your child will be sexually assaulted in public bathrooms by sexual predators disguised as transsexuals, you might also want to consider one of the many other irrationally persistent and overly specific fears we commonly refer to as "phobias". There is still no name for the irrational fear that classmate(s) of one's children will commit social suicide by playing a long con of pretending to be transsexual in order to get into their pants. What should we call it?

A soon to be even more controversial issue than the fairly vanilla topic of bathrooms is the topic of "pronouns". For transsexuals who pass, obviously it's not a problem, but what if a transsexual who very distinctly does not "pass" demands to be referred to exclusively as their chosen pronoun? Society already handles this almost entirely on it's own. "Confusion" from whatever source leads to perceived misuses of pronouns, and then formal/informal requests are made by one party to alter the use of specific pronouns when dealing with that party. Whether or not that request is accepted or rejected in all situations comes with the possibility of social sanctions, both good and bad, being applied based on whether or not that request is accepted or rejected in that specific circumstance. Individuals who will not make small gestures of courtesy when asked look like douches, and businesses (and government) who likewise refuse common courtesy by always referring to someone as the opposite of the gender they identify with see plummeting popularity levels just as well. Consider this: I am a cisgendered male (meaning not-transsexual). If you were to call me a girl, that would be kind of like calling me a boy if I was actually an MTF transsexual. To make it illegal to refer to a transsexual as the opposite of the gender they desire would also be to make it illegal to refer to me as a girl in a pejorative or name-calling sense. Do we honestly want to outlaw name-calling? I really hope not; only a pussy would want that.

"But Vagabond, they want us to pay for their operashuns!!!!!!". — internet

It's a valid question, and there's some startling answers out there. Being denied access to the medical requirements for an overall healthy transition (hormone therapy and counseling mostly?) can actually be seriously debilitating (depression leading to suicide is common), and so any approving parent of a transsexual teenager is going to for certain want such things included in their medical coverage. Full blown sexual reassignment surgery, if indeed is a healthy part or major step in the process of transitioning for some transsexuals, then yes, should be covered at a premium in the plan of any would be parents not willing to risk the health of their children or future financial insecurity. Whether or not you want private or state funded medical coverage that includes it is a much larger conversation. Individuals and households who can afford to do so on their own already do, whether or not we can afford to include it in a state medical program is a question of relative wealth. If the state is wealthy, then yes.

Transsexuals who pay for their transition out of pocket, and do it successfully, currently require no accommodation from society whatsoever, and have likely made contributions to society it in the form of hours worked to earn the money required to pay for their transition, the taxes paid on those earnings, and the business given to one of many sectors of the medical industry. These are the sneaky bitches and bastards that will be violating our sacred bathroom laws for centuries to come, and getting away with it with us none the wiser, at least until we install DNA scanning tranny-alarms in the distant dystopian future of The Great Inter-Stellar Mormon Empire.

In summation, what people do to their own bodies, and what is in their own best interest, is pretty much not for unconcerned laymen to dictate. Some things people get away with, like watching a drive in movie screen from a nearby hill or using the bathroom of the gender that everyone thinks or considers you to be when they are wrong from a chromosomal standpoint, should not be either worried about or legislated against. Transsexuals who fail to "pass" are no more likely to commit sexual assault in a bathroom than anyone else, so why bar them? Use private bathrooms instead of public ones? But hey if you see Bill Cosby in a wig walk into a women's bathroom, maybe play it safe and hold it in... If a really manly looking woman demands you refer to her as such, first and foremost consider whether or not they are manly enough to beat you up, but after that ask yourself how far out of your intuitive way you need to go in order to placate/appease/respect them in the given situation. If you don't like them and want to be offensive or have a point to make, go ahead and speak what you wish, but also consider the social ramifications resulting from how other people will interpret and judge what you say and how you say it. If someone demands that you refer to them as some pronoun they just invented like "ze/zim/zir/zey/zem", then you can in most situations get away with explaining to them that they can be satisfied with "he/she/they" like every other person and thing in existence or fuck off back to their preferred orifice of origin to continue gestating for a few months while they come to realize that the world cannot cognitively and syntactically revolve around their own eccentric obscurantism. Tell them that when people begin to use those terms regularly enough that you will just naturally and subconsciously adopt them into your patterns of speech.

When there are enough fully transitioned dolphin-kin out there swimming the the deep blue of the pacific, I'm sure that out of respect and admiration we will all use trans-dolphin culture specific pronouns where possible. So you see, while this issue is very deep, dark, and complicated, through echo-location like observational skills we can scan our environments for the porpoise and goal of successfully navigating what seem like unchartable waters.

Here are the games I play currently. Real games...

Space Station 13 (Survival, Sci-Fi-Horror, round-based-role-play, atmospheric/medical simulation, PvP/PvE, online-multiplayer)

Dwarf Fortress (Survival, fantasy, world-simulation)

DayZ (Survival simulator, Horror, PvP/PvE, online-multiplayer, unfinished game in Alpha early access phase of development)

And if I'm bored enough, Rocket League (Soccer with invincible rocket powered cars and a giant soccer-ball)

Isn't that what we're talking about here, global catastrophe? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no problem calling global warming a catastrophe, but what I was referring to is an actual event resulting from global warming which would actually cause immediate human death. A massively deadly hurricane striking the U.S would be one such example. Extended and widespread heat/drought could be another. But these are not guaranteed to happen as climate change progresses, they are just possibilities. My point is that we don't yet know which will turn out to be the sharpest edge of global warming, and it is entirely possible our population will continue to grow despite things being made more difficult.

Will climate change and other such hurtles, like running out of fossil fuels, result in a net loss of human life on earth? I bet no.

Have you ever tried harvesting garden crops off a piece of land for decades with out putting anything back? — Metaphysician Undercover

By rotating crops, fallowing fields, and growing diverse plants you can actually effectively manage soil nutrition. Building naturally self-sustaining agricultural systems is messier than monoculture (see: permaculture) and you will get less calories per acre, but each year instead of needing more fertilizer to combat nutrient depletion, soil quality is naturally improved. Different plants absorb and deposit different nutrients from and into the soil, which is how ecosystems become more productive with only water and sunlight as external inputs.

The Green Revolution (Norman Borlaug) depended on, and "massive new high-density agriculture contrived through technology" assumes plentiful, cheap petroleum (for fertilizer, transportation, farm operation, irrigation, etc.). — Bitter Crank

Fertilization boosts efficiency but it's not necessary. Through additional land use and crop diversification we could still manage soil health and maintain current production levels. Operating a farm depends on how the farm is set up, but industrial scale electric harvesting vehicles are very foreseeable to me. New and cheaper forms of irrigation are constantly being invested in, and assuming we can satisfy the electricity requirements, all the horse power that currently gets our farming done for us can come from electric and renewable sources. Transportation of goods will always be an on-going cost, but as our infrastructural networks expand we get more bang for our buck. Tesla also seems to actually be getting somewhere in their electric car, which gives me hope that the horse and buggy won't be making any comebacks.

It is possible to do industrial scale farming strictly with electricity, but right now electricity is too expensive and the technology we would use to do so is still too new and inefficient. Electric tractors will inevitably become widespread though, and it's just one example of the many innovative switches that we will attempt in the necessary upcoming scramble to maintain what we have already built.

And just what do you think the combination of global warming (aka climate change) and the steady decline of cheap, plentiful oil (and all the industrial, technical prowess that it brings) is if not "a global catastrophe"? — Bitter Crank

Well the seas won't rise at any severely threatening rates so far as I know. The polar bears are fucked, that's true, along with many other animal populations that thrive in the current climate, but the threats to humans and human agriculture is hard to accurately predict. How wide-spread and prevalent droughts and turbulent weather will become, and how fast, might not sufficiently dent our ability to expand agricultural infrastructure. Whether or not we will be able to be as successful as we have without cheap oil, or at least have an equitable fraction of that success, depends on the limits of our ability find replacement energy sources and efficient ways to package and deploy it. We won't stop global warming, but we might just surpass oil and the combustion engine mainly via solar, battery, and electric motor technology.

Listen, the agriculture/medical/pharmaceutical industries all depend on cheap, plentiful petroleum for power, but also many products and chemical feedstock. — Bitter Crank

The medical and pharmaceutical industries depend on cheap oil currently, but mainly for transportation, energy, and packaging purposes. Petrochemical derivatives used for actual medicine isn't a huge gas guzzler so far as I know, although we might have to endure a century of being charged an arm and a leg for the rubber gloves our physicians burn through so quickly. Most aspects of our medical infrastructure such as transportation and energy needs can possibly be met with alternative technology. Replacements for rubber and plastic might be far out, and so we will stomach the extra cost until viable replacements can be found. The self-driving Teslambulance™ has a comically high change of actually existing one day.

This all hinges largely on drastic improvements in the cost/output of renewable energy sources and at least steady improvement in our ability to store, transport, and deploy it, which will essentially be the bare bones of electric machine driven industry. I'm not saying I think we will definitely stick the landing, but I do think we have a real shot at doing so, and we really do have serious incentive to try.

The poor bears... We really should get some pelts for posterity while supplies last!

The population will shrink. It won't be nice, but as food production falls, billions that the earth can no longer feed will die. That will bring consumption closer to production at a much lower level. — BitterCrank

I don't exactly see it as a sure thing that the population is going to actually shrink anytime soon, even in the face of drastic climate change. Local famines may cause population declines in certain regions, but unless the global economy is completely compromised there would still be growth overall. We might not be able to rapidly expand north and southward with kiwis and coconuts in tow, but we can take cow shit and vegetables pretty much everywhere. If Monsanto is to be believed we'll have fast growing low-light -cold-resistant pumpkin-spice leeks before you Americans even cross the 49th parallel! Massive new and high-density agriculture simply must be contrived through technology or sheer man-power lest we actually get to the point where widespread human hunger tests the limits of our food production. I think it would take a global catastrophe, or a long and resisted period of global depression, to actually put population growth into the negative.

Nature might take 100 years to adapt and bounce back through over fancy and highly praised "natural selection" (bleh! Who needs it! We burned that bridge with an industrial blow-torch anyhow!), but when humans feel threatened in large enough numbers it sometimes leads to drastic change. As the cost of living rises and global population growth continues to slow, out of greed and foresight markets will eventually divest toward more basic needs and infrastructure will slowly be adapted. The earth's population has grown by over two billion humans since my birth, and around 6 billion in the last 100 years. This kind of insane growth has got to come to an end at some point, and global population growth has been slowing since the 60's, but I have a hard time guessing when our ability to improve, expand, and innovate will finally succumb to the realities of a harsh and indifferent world that dictates we've lived beyond our means (If nature is our mother we're her teenage daughter who won't take no for an answer). The major problems facing our species currently - energy, fuel/fuel technology, climate - are and will be the center of focus of what are set to become the most lucrative industries and markets in human history. Perhaps burning fossil fuels such as we have is a one-hit wonder; our one trick that we will never surpass, but I say nay to that. The stakes, and the payoffs, have never been higher. I say let it ride.

Your sense of goodness and right/wrong being grounded in your life experience seems like another way of saying that the reality and facts of the world you are in have shaped and determined how you feel about said world and various aspects of it (in this case namely what you feel about actions which promote/prohibit desirable and undesirable states of affairs). The most common and basic moral values like life and well-being are presumably high in your hierarchy of values, and so on at least some level the emotional inclinations you feel toward various moral systems reflects how well those moral systems seem to perform at promoting those values in the world and environment you live in. As the facts of environment change, so too can the effectiveness of varying strategies.

The justification of our most basic human desires need not be an issue so long as we can more or less agree on a few major points like our mutual desire to live and thrive free of unnecessary suffering. The meat and potatoes of our moral discussions then get to be about how best to achieve and preserve these ends through strategies of mutual cooperation and compromise.The claims of moral realists flounder in a world in which can change and provide exception to their once universal moral facts, but for those who can more or less agree on basic values, the hard facts of the ramifications of our social strategies is an area where the clarity, depth, and accuracy of science and reason allows us to make reliable improvement.

Climate change is definitely occurring...

Climate change (a warming trend) is definitely being accelerated by human emissions and land use (see: "greenhouse effect")...

For some reason though it doesn't worry me a whole lot. During my quintessential 90's childhood I was constantly told my Michio Kaku et al that unless I turn all my lights out that I'm going to wind up destroying the planet. When I was 15 or so, having failed my quest, was then informed that it was too late, and that the earth is irrevocably fucked, and that the noble polar bear will soon die out, and that the seas will rise, and that mankind will need to emigrate to underground cave networks in the future dystopian spaghetti western that we all get to enjoy while the last remaining spiritually pure humans escape to space in search of a new and unblemished home-world.

It sounded kinda cool I must admit... They probably should have focused on something cuter than polar bears as a means of guilting my younger self... (penguins?...)...

So here I am today, in basically the precise year which twenty years ago was hailed as the beginning of the end, and instead of worry or anxiety, the main emotions I feel toward climate change are curiosity and a kind of urgency or excitement. I look at climate change and instead of focusing only on the ways in which it can be or is bad for life, I am much more interested to know about the ways in which we can take advantage of and exploit it.

For example(s), the crops that are lost in the equatorial regions through drought and bad weather resulting from global warming might be a fraction of what we could gain by exploiting longer and better growing seasons farther and farther north and south. As the oceans warm, what long term effects will this have on sea life? While some plankton and fish species decline, which species of plankton and fish might thrive in the warmer waters? Could they possibly become more abundant? Which mammals stand to benefit? As glaciers recede, what possible use can we make of the land it reveals and what fuels and minerals might it contain? As higher CO2 levels basically means more fuel for plants (along with warmer temperatures), what will the overall effect of globally increased vegetation growth be? What will actually become of global weather patterns? Will the future be predominantly a desert or something else?

It is cliché, but the Chinese word for "crisis" also means "opportunity", and I think it applies in this case. Out of a natural desire to be safe humans tend to air on the side of caution when it comes to protecting the things we come to value, which is why we disproportionately focus on the ways in which things can go wrong and where appropriate air on the side of alarm-ism. Climate change does pose definite challenges and risks that we would all rather not have to ever face, but if we can adapt to these changes successfully enough then there might actually be some rewards on the other side, which is especially important given the additional resources we constantly require to satisfy our growing population.

Worry about climate change is useful to motivate masses undoubtedly, and I'm not suggesting that we should not limit our GHG emissions, because the slower climate change occurs the more easily and successfully we can adapt to it, and adapt we must. Population growth alone ensures our future emissions, and so no matter what we do GHG driven warming and the resulting climate change is inevitable (see deforestation and agriculture). The war on climate change was probably lost before it had ever begun but still it rages with the same ultra-doom's day attitude that had swayed me in my youth. The result of this attitude was that I had to spend quite a bit of time trying to actually learn about what was real and what wasn't when it came to the short and long term effects of global warming along with a sensible picture of it's human causes. Now that I finally understand why and how no amount of emission reducing accords and hippie-style earth-ship communes is going to stop the climate from eventually changing, my predominant focus has shifted from convincing people to halt or reverse climate change through major sacrifice because the the sky will fall, to instead accept it as an inevitability. The future is scary, and in order to get there we must be intrepid. It's time for the Chicken Littles and Foghorn Leghorns of the world to stop rocking the boat in opposite directions (We're doomed vs man-made climate change isn't real) so that the Eggberts of the world can actually figure out where to steer it, lest we crash...

  The boat sped on down the river. The river was getting narrower. There was some kind of a dark tunnel ahead - a great round tunnel that looked like an enormous pipe - and the river was running right into the tunnel. And so was the boat! "Row on!' shouted Mr Wonka, jumping and waving his stick in the air. 'Full speed ahead!' And with the Oompa-Loompas rowing faster than ever, the boat shot into the pitch-dark tunnel, and all the passengers screamed with excitement.
  'How can they see where they're going?' shrieked Violet Beauregarde in the darkness.
  'There's no way of knowing where they're going!' cried Mr Wonka, hooting with laughter.
  'There's no earthly way of knowing
  Which direction they are going!
  There's no knowing where they're rowing,
  Or which way the river's flowing!
  Not a speck of light is showing,
  So the danger must be growing,
  For the rowers keep on rowing,
  And they're certainly not showing
  Any signs that they are slowing...'

(Roald Dahl)

Hard science and logic are not useful as a foundation of moral basics (not unless the will to live is somehow scientific), but they are highly useful for determining what works in effectively and accurately achieving the ends laid out by a given moral foundation. For example, punitive incarceration as a tool for promoting a crime free society is an act we justify by what is in the end a shared moral foundation based on our mutual desire to be free of crime, but perhaps incarceration for rehabilitation rather than crime deterrence would be much more effective at actually reducing overall crime rates. This is where logic, science and data collection can help us to enhance and improve the moral decisions we make in pursuit of achieving the fundamental goals, intent, and purpose of making those kinds of moral decisions in the first place.

When it comes to "jealousy" and it's moral implications (I.E: why experiencing jealousy might lead to immoral actions, or, jealousy as a source of continuous conflict in human groups), they are indeed rather complex. Science can describe why jealousy exists from an evolutionary behavioral perspective, it can describe the gist of the endocrinological/hormonal neural/neurochemical structures that house the physical mechanism which produces jealousy, and it can prescribe therapy or medication to reduce jealousy in individuals. Science can explain why jealousy is beneficial or harmful in a raw macro-sense within specific environments and social circumstances because it improves/hinders chances of surviving/thriving/reproducing, and science can also explain how or why it might be a necessary part of a healthy psyche because it drives self-improvement. I'm not so sure that jealousy is always our moral enemy.

When jealousy does become our enemy however, as it was for Othello, in a sense the thrust of evidence based science and logic in pursuit of truth and fact is antithetical to that instinctive bio-mechanical part of us which would see such emotions influence our decisions in ways that are to the detriment of ourselves and our own values. I would be hard pressed to scientifically illustrate the subtle and complex social ramifications of jealousy and revenge, but as I think Shakespeare would appreciate, seeing things from an unbiased perspective really does help us to sort out which kinds of actions, behaviors, and over-indulged emotions can be potentially harmful to ourselves and those around us (especially the ones we love apparently).

What is a moral fact except something that is in accordance with or derived form a moral value?

Can anyone give me an example of a universal moral value such that the moral arguments we base upon them can be called objective fact?

We have common moral values, sometimes very common, but so far as I'm aware we do not yet have "universal" ones. For example:

"Torture is wrong" (a "moral truth" of some kind presented earlier in the thread).

What is this based on? Is it always true? I could paint a picture of a social world in which making a social agreement to abstain from ever torturing one another is mutually beneficial (by appealing to our common human desire to not be subjected to unnecessary pain), but does this statement hold true for all possible worlds?

Since I can construct a heavily weighted and plausible moral dilemma designed to force the use of torture, to which most people would begrudgingly submit, does that mean the moral fact that "torture is wrong" does not always hold true? Is it still a moral fact? Not really... While it is true for some or many situations, it is not true for all of them. That we as individuals, as groups, and as a society do not need to resort to torture, and have incentive not to, is a fact of our environment, and with it, is subject to change.

Most of us agreeing on the immorality of torture is not an existential given. It is an emergent strategy of mutual benefit and preservation based on shared shared values and shared objectives. Most of us want to live, most of us want to thrive, and most of us want to avoid torture. From these kinds of values we come up with what is basically a set of mutual behavioral restrictions (and obligations if the situation is dire) that when adhered to achieves and promotes desirable future outcomes.

The problems come when the environment and circumstances we find ourselves in change: sometimes they negate the possibility of more or mutually desirable outcomes; sometimes circumstances force us to directly contravene one desirable outcome in order to preserve an even more desirable outcome.

I do believe there is some truth-esque quality to some moral arguments, but to measure it requires accounting for variance first in shared values, and then variance in changing environments and circumstances which not only determine which strategies (morals) will effectively promote given values, but also determines which values can even be possibly achieved in the first place.

We can all get squarely and truly behind the idea of "it's immoral to torture innocent children" but we live in a world that too often - makes individuals push buttons which wind up torturing some children in the name of arresting the torture of other children- for me to accept the "Here's the supremely moral way of doing things" attribute to any moral claim. I'm always looking for the "Here's a better way for us to do things" claim because it actually makes sense in a thought out realist framework which acknowledges that moral cooperation is only possible in the degree to which our interests align (or are not opposed), and the degree to which we are physically/circumstantially capable of carrying out these cooperative strategies.

In some ways all moral facts are relativistic. They are relative to the shared values and desires of the concerned parties, and relative to constraints laid upon their possible cooperation by the circumstances and environment they are in. If one individual values freedom over security and another individual vice versa, there will be natural limitations on their possible degree of cooperation where those two values conflict. In a world where the severe reduction of "freedom" is required to maintain adequate security, "freedom" is not something that any moral system can actually offer (and survive for long...).

So the bad news is that we can only progress strategically and morally in the degree to which we agree on the fundamental objectives and outcomes of moral systems, but the good news is that we have a boat load of highly agreeable objectives, like staying alive for instance (need we even consider those who disagree?), and so really much or most of our moral arguments can be based on how we actually get down to achieving these highly agreeable ends. The great news is that we have things like logic and science which can really help us begin to sort out the hard truth of whether or not our up and coming moral strategies are actually effectual. Quite contrary to moral relativism, this broad approach of identifying common values, desires, and objectives upon which we can seat value, and realizing that constraints on what we are able to cooperate on and how well we can cooperate to achieve them stem from a changing environment, gives firm and persuasive bargaining ground on a moral frontier with clearly defined objectives and in a world where more and more actually effective cooperative strategies are becoming possible (thanks science!).

In short we can judge moral claims by how well they perform at actually achieving their stated ends, and while we haven't yet found any perfect moral claims, by building a better world and refining the moral claims we do have we might actually approach one.

True. So do hills, mountains, tall buildings, and big trees. "A turbine's 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet sweep a vertical airspace of just under an acre. The air above 328 feet (all the way up for miles) is sublimely indifferent to windmills, even if there were 1 million of them. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. In theory though you could have a trillion super-massive windmills (theory) and actually start to see some negative environmental ramifications resulting from altered wind patterns. The pool of wind energy is so massive and replenishes itself so easily that it would take human construction far beyond any scale yet seen to even begin to dent it. There is no direct environmental impact from a spinning prop in the sky or from the electricity we get out of it, and so basically wind energy is 100% clean.

Nuclear energy could be better (safer) IF we standardized parts (the way the French have). — Bitter Crank

I'm not against nuclear energy in principle, I just need to be convinced that the dice rolls have sufficiently minimized risks. Nuclear energy is clean in terms of greenhouse gas emissions compared to fossil fuels, but we've already had two major meltdowns (Fukushima and Chernobyl) so it seems like we're trading accelerated climate change over the long run for an increase in localized irradiation events. France might be ready for nuclear power but the rest of the global political idiot class so incentivized to build Nuclear power plants seems to be a bit less prepared...

It's certainly true though that we would need so many windmills to have some kind of effect in this manner that what we're talking about is potentially 1000's of years away. What we do know is windmills don't shit out greenhouse gasses or other pollutants. The localized environmental impact of their initial installation and the on-going impact of maintenance basically covers it all.

Good question, here's the short:

An acre of solar panels probably absorbs and stores more light and heat than an acre of rain-forest. We will never dent the environment this way (would take too many panels) in the foreseeable future, but if we did, it would probably have a net cooling effect.

Wind turbines slow the movement of air that was set into motion by mostly atmospheric pressure changes (which comes from heat). If we covered the entire world in windmills I don't know what the effect would actually be. The weather might be made calmer, but it might become more erratic as well if slowing the air allows it to absorb more heat energy from the sun. (but again we will never have enough turbines to see such a global effect).

Hydro-electricity is quite "clean". Every time precipitation happens the sun is lifts an extraordinary amount of water, and there's no input/output cost to that system if we happen to make some of it turn a turbine on it's way back down to earth. That energy would have been wasted anyway. Big Dams can fuck up local ecosystems, but if done right they can create new ones too.

Nuclear energy is filthy. It's "renewable" because it lasts a long time but it's not "clean" at all. We actually sometimes use the word "dirty" (the very opposite of "clean") to describe the inevitable waste products from using uranium as a fuel source. It leads to waste-dumps, wastelands, radiation sickness, and cancer. Only waste-dumps are a guarantee, but we've already lost the latter three dice-rolls more than once.

If nuclear fusion works we could be laughing all the way to the bank of limitless energy. There is no waste in fusion so far as I know. In fact we might actually be able to use it to destroy our existing waste. This is not something we can bet the future of humanity on yet, so it's on the social back-burner while the nerds do us a solid plasma favor by figuring out if it will work.

Of all the "green" technologies, nuclear is really only considered as much because of... Well....:

Trains might have to become a pretty big part of the new infrastructure, but I'm worried about the machines which actually dig that coal up in the first place. For mining operations on-going fuel costs can make or break their ability to be cost efficient and turn a profit. Right now the development of new infrastructure itself is dependent on oil because the machines and mega-machines which actually do that job simply need oil to function. We have no electrical equivalent of a D10 Caterpillar (yet) and the many other portable machines we require to expand and maintain our existing infrastructure. We will eventually need electrical equivalents for all of them as rising fuel costs restricts economic viability.

We can fuel our city cranes and snowplows at exorbitant cost because they are necessary, but things like mining for metal will decline while market prices rise.

Besides, wind and solar supply electricity. Oil isn't used much for electrical production in most situations. Where oil is used is in diesel powered generation plants which run only when absolutely necessary to take up slack on the grid. Most of the time those plants are sitting idle. — Bitter Crank

We don't use diesel by and large for energy production in electrical grids, but it is the best form and source for energy for large machines (portability included). At some point diesel could become so expensive that entirely electric based alternatives (which have yet to be designed as far as i know) will have to become the replacement.