I think, if we are willing to be somewhat charitable, and not dismiss his thesis out of hand because it doesn't fit our ideology, there's something there.

I've said this before in another thread, it doesn't need to be a law, and strictly inevitable, to be something we should probably take into account if we want to have a political philosophy that is effective.

His point is precisely that specialisation and leadership tend to oligarchy over time because of very common human tendencies to want to maintain power, seek and conspire with likeminded people, bend and corrupt the rules because they are in a position to do so etc etc... Demanding this very precise definition of oligarchy so we can go measure it in the world is kind of weak argument it seems to me... if we see this process happening all the time. This is not the kind of thing we can test and verify with perfect accuracy like say a law in physics anyway.

And one doesn't need to subscribe to conservatism, fascism or any far right ideology like that because of this insight, but we probably should take seriously the notion that organisation and hierarchy are in some way tied to each other, and that we therefor should probably take that into account to determine the kind of equality we want to aim for (if we want organisation at all). But you know, this is a non-starter for a lot of lefties.

There are operating communes all over the world; all different, mostly functional. So, of course it's feasible. In fact, it's the most reasonable and efficient form of human organization. Unfortunately, it only works on a small scale. And since these communities are surrounded by oceans of dysfunctional monetary society, they have a high rate of death by drowning. — Vera Mont

It will be relevant again. See my first post on this topic. I always differentiated between ideology "ism" and a communal system of organization. — Vera Mont

Are you suggesting a whole lot of people will die? Or at least our dysfunctional global monetary system will die, which probably also implies a lot of people dying.

Because that's the only way i see it really becoming relevant again. Global geo-politics won't go away on its own otherwise, and so communal systems of organization will continue to be drowned out.

You realize literally every person, intelligent and not, said this exact thing, in personal sincerity and absolute truth, since the beginning of language. Correct? — Outlander

Maybe they said that, but they were wrong :-).

I have actual reasons that are more that just "I feel special". I could elaborate, but this isn't really the thread for it I think.

EDIT:

Man discovers fire. Same thing. Man discovers cooking. Same thing. Man discovers ChatGPT. Same thing.. there truly is nothing new under the sun. — Outlander

For much of history progress was very slow, and general energy consumption and economic growth modest. Since the industrial revolution, and exploitation of fossil fuels, this has accelerated exponentially. Now we are nearing the end of that exponential growth, with climate change fundamentally altering the climate we developed our civilizations in, fossil fuels that need to be phased out and populations stagnating. That, combined with unprecedented scientific knowledge and technology makes for I would say unprecedented times.

The key word there is "history". We may need to look farther back for sustainable systems of human organization. And even when we've found a model that could work for us, we'd still have to find its vulnerabilities and insure against the identifiable threats. And, having done all that, prepare to change whatever needs changing in response to new developments and circumstances. — Vera Mont

The farther back one goes, the less relevant human organisations become for present times it seems to me... There were a lot less people and a lot more space and resources to go around. There's also the practical problem that we can't really know what came before written history.

What I would agree to is that we are heading for truly unprecedented times in a lot of aspects... so maybe none of history will remain all that relevant shortly.

I voted no, because I believe we do have certain tendencies that tend to certain outcomes.These are not necessarily hard limits to how we can organize, but rather practical concerns that steer organisations over time in certain directions (Oligarchy). The problem isn't necessarily that you can never overcome those tendencies some of the time, but that you can't overcome them sustainably.

In the Iron law of oligarchy, Michels for instance describes step by step how the unions he was part of gradually became stratified and hierarchical over time, because of the simple reason that at some point you need specialists, because everybody doing every job all the time just doesn't make much practical sense (people can't be bothered basically).

Because of specialization you inevitably get differentiation in power (some become representatives, or leaders eventually, for instance), and then those specialists tend to group up with like-minded people, to eventually consolidate their power-advantage over the rest (because they have better access to decision-making processes, and therefor can make rules that benefit them more, get more money, resources and power etc etc...).

Ultimately these oligarchs do seem to always take it to far however, at which point you get revolutions because of to much inequality... and all of it can start over again basically.

All of this seems pretty human, and actually seems to describe a process that we have seen over and over again in history. I think good political philosophy should start from description.

My point here is not the Protestant professor's take on Nietzsche, but the way he seems to be positioning his interpretation around an appreciation of aesthetic grounds. — Tom Storm

Ironically Nietzsche rejected Christianity and God precisely on aesthetic grounds. And he thought most philosophy through the ages essentially boiled down to a rationalisation for morality, aesthetics :

"It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of — namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown."

Aesthetics, morality, beliefs... all of them are in some way personally embodied and intertwined with what motivates someone as a living human being. Truth is not something we arrive at after some un-motivated dialectical process. Reason usually only comes in after the fact.

Can those immersed in the philosophical tradition tell me if aesthetic reasoning is used to justify positions on morality and meaning? — Tom Storm

It is, unconsciously... but usually no philosopher will admit as much consciously, that is the philosophers conceit, their pride in their reason getting in the way.

I am not disagreeing with the low(er) entropy part. The space that is currently occupied by the observable universe was at a much lower entropy 14 billion years ago (it had better be!) Was it at a maximum entropy? That's a trick question. I would say that, in a limited sense, it was. — SophistiCat

The space or the matter in that space is at lower entropy? That is what is confusing to me. How can space itself be measured entropically. Isn't that just the condition that sets the degrees of freedom for matter in that space to be in, determining the range of entropy? Maybe I'm missing something fundamentally here, which very well could be.

Ah, see, I actually don't agree that "low entropy is unlikely by definition." That is true of closed systems that have been evolving for some time. As per the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the entropy of such systems should be increasing over time. But we are talking about the initial state, which does not have a history. — SophistiCat

Yes unlikely by definition maybe isn't true for initial conditions, I can see the reasoning there. It still is an observation (and a condition for our universe to like it is) that the universe was in a low entropic state, it could have been otherwise I suppose... Not that that is saying much. We just don't know anything beyond it, and so it is what it is then, is the best we can do?

In response to this Count Timothy von Icarus invoked the principle of indifference. I object that we cannot get a free lunch from the principle of indifference: it cannot teach us anything about the physical world. And conclude that statements about how probable/special/surprising the early universe was are not meaningful absent a theory of the universe's origin that would inform our expectations. — SophistiCat

Yes I definitely agree with that. Anything like the principle of indifference, or anthropic principles, or things along these lines, is making assumptions we have no right to make. And without these kind of assumptions, we don't have enough information to sensibly talk about probabilities.

I'll have to return to this thread for a more detailed response later, but the early universe has this very confusing property of being in thermodynamic and chemical equilibrium but nonetheless being "low entropy." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes this I don't understand then I suppose, because isn't equilibrium necessarily maximum entropy... If entropy always increases, it can only be in equilibrium if max entropy has been reached no?

EDIT: Unless max entropy and low entropy are somehow considered the same in this particular instance, i.e. it is still considered low eventhough it is maximum entropy (for instance because compared to entropy in the rest of the history of the universe it is low). But that just sounds like confusing use of terminology to me.

This is confusing since most textbooks and classes will lead you to associate equilibrium with high entropy. The simplest explanation, which leaves out a lot of nuance, is that there is also gravitational entropy to be considered, and this being low initially offsets the apparent equilibrium seen in the cosmic microwave background.

But there is a lot more going on. Particles are changing identities incredibly frequently at these energies, the fundemental forces aren't acting like they do normally, the density of particles are changing as the universe expands and temperature shifts. It's a very dynamic model. To make things more confusing, there are arguments that the laws of physics aren't eternal and unchanging, but actually behaved differently in this era. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This sounds like it could be an answer to my question, but I don't know enough about this to judge it to be honest.

There is no limit to thr energy we can harness as long as that energy harnessing isn't directly dangerous to our existence (the air we breath, the water we drink m, the food we eat etc). — Benj96

There are limits though, even only theoretically speaking... never mind practically.

Is the level of organisation required to produce life the antithesis of entropy? Who knows. — Benj96

No, life is perfectly compatible with the second law of thermodynamics, no antithesis or counterforce is needed. In fact life depends on the universe "flowing" from a low entropy state to a higher entropy state, if the universe were static at either end no life would be possible.

Life itself is a process by which entropy is increased. We take in low entropy free energy and produce higher entropy waste, sustaining our biological form along the way for a while. A pre-condition for this is that you have a source of low entropy energy, like the sun. This makes local decreases in entropy possible (i.e. biological life-forms on earth), but the total entropy of our solar system always increases.

As the sun eventually runs out tending towards maximum entropy.... no life will be possible. That's why I said "ultimately" in quotes, it will take a while... and shouldn't necessarily concern us all that much. We live on a different time-scale as humans.

I would still critique the idea of continual progress, but from a slightly different perspective, still related to energy and entropy. The total amount of energy we receive from the sun is limited, as are natural resources on earth. That puts physical hard limits on how much we can progress, limits we possibly already passed in some ways.

To maintain complex societies we need a lot of energy continuously, the more complex the more energy.... Currently we are getting surplus energy from fossil fuels that took millennia to generate (from that fixed amount of energy from the sun), but those will run out eventually. Maybe we could replace those with other sources of energy, but at this point it's entirely unclear if we can do that without the kick-start from fossil fuels. Maybe we can manage to some extend, but certainly not indefinitely... and as you said there are always trade-offs.

Maybe more fundamentally, there are also other biological and psychological reasons why continuous progress may actually not be what we want. To "grow" as persons, and societies too, we want and need some challenges to be able to grow. As things get progressively more safe, easier and more conformable, we may also lose something vital... so you know, the question then becomes is that kind of progress really progress?

So, was the (relatively) low-entropy state of the early universe very special and unlikely (whatever that might mean)? Frankly, I don't see how. — SophistiCat

Likely or unlikely, it was in a particular state, which we have no explanation for.

In cosmology, the past hypothesis is a fundamental law of physics that postulates that the universe started in a low-entropy state,[1] in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. — Past hypothesis - Wikipedia

It wasn't at equilibrium, because it was quickly expanding, but if, counterfactually, there was no expansion, then the universe would have already been at its maximum entropy (and on very short time scales, during which expansion could be neglected, it was). — SophistiCat

You seem to be disagreeing with the past hypothesis, in that it wasn't low entropy, but maximum entropy?

Anyhow i'm not sure what the question is relating to this topic, I couldn't figure it from what was quoted, maybe I should read the other topic.

EDIT: I guess the question is not whether it was likely or not, but whether it was low entropy or not (low entropy is unlikely by definition), and that would in turn depend on whether space/the universe itself was expanding (progressively giving more degrees of freedom for matter to be in), or whether it was a low entropy configuration of matter expanding into an already existing larger universe/space. This is probably very basic stuff, but i'm no physicist so excuse my ignorance.

EDIT2: And if it was the first case (the universe itself explanding) than the past hypothesis isn't "matter was in a low entropy configuration", but "the universe was small". Is a small universe likely or unlikely, without another frame of reference, who knows... so I guess I would agree with you. Probabilities only make sense if you have relevant information. And since we don't, it doesn't. What is the likelihood of drawing the ace of spades out of an undefined amount of cards and with undefined types of cards in the deck?

For some the prospect that everything may being fundamentally pointless (that progress in the end is futile) is a source of great sadness/depression. — Benj96

Everything is 'ultimately' pointless since entropy is a fundamental law of the universe.

Maybe it is a source of sadness/depression for them because they have been falsely let to believe that that is and should be the goal. Most earlier philosophers actually disagree with this, it's only in the past centuries that this idea has become commonplace.

Base and noble in Nietzsche's conception, and in that of old (Greek) religions (where he got the idea), correspond roughly to ruled randomly by animal instinct vs someone who has overcome that "basic" animal nature and managed to order those instincts into some more.

So why would workers find it more difficult to submit to captains of industry? Because they don't see a real difference in them, they are just as base as the workers and so there is no perceived natural difference in rank between them that maybe could justify their "rule".

Maybe you could say some of the current ideas are substitutes for the religions of old in that they employ some of the same methods. In Nietzsche conception though the problem is rather with the valuations they promote, not necessarily with the method. Capitalism seeks to merely fulfill desires in the most efficient manner, it strives for contentment, happiness for the largest number. Mere utility therefor is its main value. Religions of old, and Nietzsche, saw those as something to be overcome... the aim should be over-man.

I'm a bit of an energy-determinist, which is maybe just another word for taking the laws of physics seriously...

It's my contention that most of what people call scientific, technological and moral progress largely follows from the fact that we progressively use a lot more energy (since the industrial revolution), which is the real driver behind all of this.

None of the technological advances of the past centuries could've taken off if we didn't have increasingly larges amounts of energy to power them... and to keep powering them. It's calculated that in western societies we use per capita the energy-equivalent of more than 100 human slaves working 24/7 (energy-slaves).

Because of that we can live like kings of old in material terms. Because of that utopian ideals like liberalism, socialism and communism, or moral progress in terms of equality, non-discrimination became possible in principle. Because of that we could afford larger parts of society to devote their time on things like science. People regularly get the causality backwards on these things.

In the idea of progress ala Pinker is assumed that this will last at least a while, that these advances are somewhat permanent and can be build on going forward. If it would end tomorrow, or some day in the near future, all of this would sound rather hollow.

Now of course the elephant in this particular room is that most of the energy we use, are fossil fuels which are being used up at a rate that is much faster than they regenerate. Futhermore we are destroying important parts of the ecosystems we depend upon in doing so. None of this seems sustainable, which just means - in plainer terms - that it will end sooner rather than later.

The belief that progress will keep on going the way it has gone the past centuries, could be nothing more than the epistemological shortsightedness of humans having lived their entirely life on the sharp end of the hockey-stick of progress.

Human nature is both egalitarian and stratifying, i.e. we do have tendencies tor greed, social status seeking etc etc... but at the same time we also have a moral impulse that wants to tear down those who seek to elevate themselves above others at the cost of the group.

Egalitarian projects fail, because of scale and specialisation that becomes needed in larger groups. The moral impulse, social control, works better in smaller groups where nobody is inherently all that much elevated above others. But when you get larger groups, more specialisation and more power concentrated in certain required roles, it's harder for these moral impulses to keep those that seek elevation down.

Scale is the issue, not human nature (or at least not directly).

In principle, it may not be. In results, it certainly is. Nature selects for what is most likely to survive and thrive. Man selects with quite different motivations, and I find some of them suspect. It's okay to select out hemophilia - though nature would have done that faster, left alone - but I doubt it's a good idea to select out heavy melanin pigmentation, in a warming world. — Vera Mont

I don't think we can know the results for certain. I also don't know if nature selecting is something we should necessarily aim for.... at this point we are a large part of nature anyway.

I don't see how that's going to get any worse through medicine than it's already getting through politics and economics. — Vera Mont

Don't you see how inequality might get amplified by virtue of some people having access to it and others not?

That's it, the big question. What if it gets away from us? What if it's suborned by the evilest entities among us? Or the least socially responsible? What kind of monsters will be created? For what purposes? — Vera Mont

Yes agreed, what are the risks and can we deal with them is the question.

We have to use imagination. There are plenty of departure-points. What do people who resort to artificial insemination ask for? What do Couples hiring a surrogate mother demand? What were the bad old eugenics programs aimed at? The most nearly perfect, healthy, clever, beautiful, talented, potentially successful baby they can possibly get. Superman and Uberwench. Will that generation of perfect children also be bred/spliced for empathy, fairness, humility, affection, generosity, aesthetic sensibility? — Vera Mont

I can see the relatively small changes like removing diseases, or giving someone more of a desirable trait... but even there, there would already be a lot of disagreement in what is actually desirable. Where it becomes really difficult is when to decide what to do when and if we get beyond human. Sure we can imagine a variety of things, but how do we decide and maybe more importantly who decides?

I think it's fine.

If ethical restrictions should be placed on it, it should be because of negative consequences we want to avoid. Calculating consequences is notoriously difficult though, so probably because of that reason alone, we should exercise some restraint.

But in essence tinkering with genes is not that different from the selective breeding we have been doing for millennia. We have been selecting plants, animals and even human partners in a quest to produce some kind of result in the offspring. The only difference is that we could presumably do it with a lot more precision now and actually have some notion of what we are doing.

So you know, the question is why would unknowingly fumbling around with selection be better than more conscious and precise selection? In principle it isn't, would be my answer.

The reason to exercise restraint anyway, is more of a general objection to any potent technology.... because it implies a lot of power, and so it creates bigger rifts between haves and have nots. That is a problem, not necessarily because of the nature of said technology, but more because of the nature of our societal organisations which seem to tend to inequality and all the problems that come with that.

Another more general objection would be that we are simply not mature/smart/wise enough as societies to deal with technologies that are this powerful. These technologies, may have some advantages, but they also multiply risks. If we don't have sufficient organisation to deal with those, it would seem a bad idea to mess with them.

As for your last question, that is a very interesting one, but also exceedingly difficult, and I see no good way to sensibly think about it. In part we are a product of evolution and the way we think about things, what we value is informed by what kind of biology evolution happened to give us. We are viewing things from within evolution, and cannot do otherwise really... but to answer that question sensibly it would seem we need a perspective from outside? It's like trying to measure something without a fixed measuring-standard.

Along those lines, I wonder, is there a common root for all such endeavors? Did philosophy begin somewhere? If so, where and how and when and why and who and what? — Bret Bernhoft

Though some aspects of what we could consider philosophical thinking where probably always already present and fused into the mythological and the religious, I would say a common root (not necessarily the only one) probably was writing, or at least the more widespread use and cultural integration of writing. There language becomes something that is more fixed, and can more easily be reflected on.
With words surviving past the authors utterances and the concrete situations he made those in, you get more of a need for interpretation (what does such and such really mean?) and a need for fixing meaning over different contexts and precise definitions etc... you get more abstraction, which is what is needed for philosophy.

In short it co-evolved with, or was a by-product of, new technological evolutions in language-use.... as we started using language in other ways, we also evolved other ways of thinking to fit those.

I don't think so, I think Nietzsche was right in that he was tired of life and killed himself by trolling Athenian elites. Sort of like when forum members can't get themselves to leave the forum, and go out in a frenzy of insults and behaviors that are in obvious breach of forum rules... a suicide by Mod type of thing.

(3) Who decides (1) and (2)? — Mikie

Those that have the power to do so.

Bit of a flippant answer maybe, but probably one of the more honest ones.

In the world we live in it you never get to escape some already existing power relations. That is the situation you start from and then maybe you organise to negotiate a bigger share or change the rules... that is you take it by getting more power. And there it probably helps if you can appeal to some moral sentiments, yes.

But ultimately there is no non-arbitrary answer to these kinds of questions in the abstract. If you say everybody should get a share equal to his input, then you are presupposing some kind of meritocratic principle. Why, who knows? You could just as well decide to allocate shares according to needs, or maybe you just give everybody an equal share for practical reasons etc etc... Every answer presupposes some value or principle that can't be wholly justified.

Can someone please enlighten me? — believenothing

Yes I can enlighten you, you seem to be under the assumption that something is only meaningful if it persists indefinitely or something is only meaningful relative to some ultimate goal or consequence. In that case nothing is meaningful because of the ultimate heat dead of the universe, but more importantly the choice of ultimate consequences or goals as the only thing that is relevant is arbitrary, and need not be the only way we look at meaning.

The wording was a bit of a play on your wording... what I meant is that the social aspect of how we learn was missing in your story. Trail and error on its own would be very difficult if you don't start from a lot of build up knowledge through the generations. Put another way, I don't disagree with what you said, I just thought it could use this addition.

I don't think what I'm saying is that outlandish, but you know, I'm not a professional so I very well could be somewhat off the mark.
— ChatteringMonkey

I don't think it's outlandish, but I provided specific sources for my opinions. The extent to which human behavior is innate has been argued on the forum before. There is scientific evidence on both sides. No one argues that cultural influences don't have a big role to play. If your positions weren't expressed so definitively I wouldn't might not have responded so vehemently. — T Clark

Ok fair enough.

The force of my expression was probably more a reaction to current ideologies like liberal individualism completely missing the mark in my opinion, than anything you said in particular.

Though I do still disagree about Homo Sapiens being just another animal. I would agree we're not special because of reason/consciousness, as was the general idea in the West in philosophy and Christianity... And yes, we do have instincts like other animals, but on top of that we also have cultural evolution, which can I think be considered a real phase shift in evolution on earth... and which does make us qualitatively different.

Do you have a source for your understanding? — T Clark

Not a single source, I've read a bunch of stuff about evolution over the years.

There was one guy in particular who gave me the idea of genetic evolution having 'offloaded' a bunch of it's "work" to cultural evolution (culture is more flexible and therefor adaptive than genes), but I don't remember his name at this moment.

The idea that organisms lose traits that become obsolete is rather commonplace and well established I think (like snakes having had feet at one time).

And then there's a lot of research on our sociality being one of our most important traits for our success.

https://www.amazon.nl/Secret-Our-Success-Evolution-Domesticating/dp/0691166854

https://darwinianbusiness.com/2016/02/29/cumulative-cultural-evolution-an-overview-of-joseph-henrichs-the-secret-of-our-success/

I don't think what I'm saying is that outlandish, but you know, I'm not a professional so I very well could be somewhat off the mark.

It would make sense, given what we know I think... but sure, hard to tell if it is true with any certainty.

EDIT: To be clear I don't want to imply that we lost "all" of those traits (as that was in the part you quoted), but that we lost at least some so that we are not 'complete' without the cultural part. Clearly we do have some instincts too.

Trial and error is induction basically, or maybe abduction more precisely.... we form theories about what we experience, and then refine them with new experiences as we go.

This process relies in part on our ability for pattern recognition, which is probably not that unlike how self-learning AI learn via neural networks. Those have existed for a long time, from the seventies or sixties, but only recently they became something that was useful, because only recently we could feed them big data gathered via the world wide web. Without big data they wouldn't get all that far in training their neural networks.

As an individual one can only experience that much in a given lifetime.... culture is our proxy for big data.

Trial and error is how we learn, yes, but not necessarily as individuals, that is to convoluted. We get most passed on by our parents, society at large, by tradition.... and then we can work with that and try out some things, sure. But almost nobody has the time, energy and the genius to make that sort of strategy work purely as an individual.



Current society is a bit of a mess, and what you feel is probably quite a "sane" reaction to all of this, you are not alone in any case. There's not a whole lot one can do about it as an individual. Realizing that we're in a bit of a shitty situation regardless of what one does, probably can help to not pile on more self-inflicted guilt on top of that. And then finding like-minded people to hang out with can help as some kind of replacement for that social/cultural structure that has eroded in modern societies.

Homo Sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. They were genetically equivalent to people today. Do you think evolution didn't provide them with the ability to make decisions and act on those decisions? Do you think people 100,000 years ago couldn't act without application of rules, objectivity or teleology? I'm sure they didn't have existential crises or nihilistic feelings. The problems you've identified are overlays on basic human behavior associated, I guess, with modern civilization. — T Clark

As someone philosophically inclined I like Taoism, probably the most philosophical religion of them all in that it is inspired by the same anti-tradition sentiments you typically find in philosophy. Western philosophy too, with Socrates, started of questioning the Gods, the customs of his time. And then Plato made a big deal out of breaking with the Homeric tradition that came before. Reason was the thing to replace it... and the rest is history as they say.

But what I think is getting more and more clear, is that we are in fact predominately 'cultural beings'. We need a culture, language, rules etc etc to prosper, because that is what gave us an edge in evolutionary terms and what was selected for. What this also means, is that because we evolved this set of abilities for cultural learning that is more flexible, we didn't need all these hard-wired traits and instincts anymore unlike other animals... and so we presumably eventually lost a lot of those traits, as tends to happen in evolution with traits that aren't useful anymore.

If true, this is probably still a bit speculative scientifically, then as humans we do in fact need and rely on this cultural superstructure because unlike other animals we lack all of these instinctive algorithmic behaviors. And presumably Homo Sapiens 200.000 years did have those structures, but they weren't really preserved because they were oral traditions for the most part. This would be a modern problem insofar as our superstructure has slowly been dissolved over the past centuries with Protestantism, liberalism, and the scientific revolution/dialectics. That was what Nietzsche was getting at with the dead of God, and the fact that we hadn't understood the real significance of it yet.... nihilism.

I don't think we fully recognise that we are guests of mother nature. Not her owners. We can't come into her house (be born) and trample around rampaging, pillaging and plundering her resources to find some form of happiness, meaning or satisfaction.

She has house rules. Like any good mother, and she'll sweat us out with the AC if she has to. She will put manners on us if we don't put manners on ourselves. The fever is rising. The planet is ill. We can be medicine or toxin. The choice is ours. — Benj96

Mother nature is a bitch, because she never told us the rules, but she will still enforce them just the same.... And the only house rule is, if you go to far, you die.

Any biological organism is looking for surplus energy to propagate it's particular form. That is what is selected for in evolutionary terms. Did we really have a choice to leave free energy in the ground collectively?

Typically, competition among organisms is fierce and adaptive enough so that no single one can take the upper hand for long. We broke genetic evolution however with our ability for cultural evolution. While the rest of the natural world is stuck evolving claws and teeth over millennia, we can create a gun in a couple of centuries.

Unfortunately, our success is also our downfall... yeast. We did everything right to succeed in your game and now you punish us for it, thanks a lot mother nature!

The story is that the economy progresses to improve life for us all, and science provides the best solutions to all human problems. It now appears that science and the economy have produced an existential threat to humans. And you want a "good" solution? Time to change what we think is good, I'd say.

Endless growth is cancerous. — unenlightened

I agree unenlightened, at least in principle, I have no particular love for current society based on economic growth. If we were to turn back time a couple of centuries, i'd say let's not start on this particular track.

Problem is that I think we kindof trapped ourselves at this point. Fossil fuels and technologies build on them enabled us to soar high above what is sustainable.

If we were to cut all of that back however I think we would have some serious problems, because we are with that many, because the whole global economy is so integrated, because a certain amount of climate warming and ecosystems collapse is already locked in for the next century even if we would stop right away etc etc...

All of that means we cannot merely stop what we are doing I think. We need an exit strategy that ideally doesn't involve total collapse of our systems (and lots of people dying), a strategy that people could get behind politically also, and at the same time it would need to get us to some place in the future that is sustainable and gives us some perspective going forward.

People will focus on some small subset of the problem, point fingers, play the blame game, come up with simplistic solutions... or on the opposite side people will deny the problem altogether or at least the severity of the consequences of the problem. I see very few actually trying to integrate multiple aspects of the problem in a coherent solution, maybe because it is very difficult... lets at least acknowledge that much.

It won't? So raising awareness of a clear problem doesn't help in formulating a solution to said problem? I have to disagree here. If you don't vocalise what "ought to be" then we have literally no goals/ideals to strive for. In such a case what can be done? This seems unreasonable and ultimately defeatist.

People need to stomp their feet about wrong-doings in the world. If we just sit back and watch we have little entitlement to complain or not accept the result. If we are aware of something immoral and don't stand our ground against it then we are complicit in whatever passive outcome occurs. You and I are as much devices of change as anyone else.

What do you suggest we do? What solution would you offer? Or are you just here to shoot down any and all possible paths to a resolve? — Benj96

What if there is no good solution? Not every problem has a solution.

But ok, raising awareness and moral outrage generally does matter and can help in solving a problem, I'll meet you halfway on that. The issue here I think is that people don't like the solution, not that they are not aware of the problem. At some point (after 30 years or so) you got to think things like climate denial or minimizing of the consequences of climate change is not a matter of people not being informed, but a matter of people not wanting to know... because they don't like what it entails. And so they back-create a story that saves them from cognitive dissonance.

There is no good solution because fossil fuels, and especially oil, are the backbone of our economy. It's the thing that made the industrial revolution possible and makes the economy tick, because it's a cheap, easy to use and an energy-dense source of energy. Add to that there are whole industries build on derivatives of oil and natural gas.

None of the energy sources that could replace them quite have the same set of properties, and all have their various problems. Wind and solar for instance are only intermittent, actually not that cheap when you'd build them outside of a fossil fueled economy, are also an environmental liability if you scale them up and we'd probably run out rare earth materials if you'd try it as a main energy source world wide.

Nuclear and deep geothermal, if we could solve the issues with drilling, are probably our best bet as a replacement on a large enough scale, but those also do require time to build and/or develop... and we are running out of time as we speak. But that would be a start of a solution, the US and Chinese government (and Europe too) throwing huge amounts of money at research and development, and at building those. Once you have enough carbon-free energy you could power carbon capture technologies and EV's and/or hydrogen-production for things like transport.

And then these rich developed countries would need to enforce carbon-free trade and actively help the rest of the world with their energy-transition, which is probably a big ask with geo-political tensions as they are.

Anyway, needless to say these are huge transformations which require a lot of time and focussed effort.... in a messy world. It's not that it is theoretically impossible, but it's still very difficult and at the end of the day people typically can't be bothered that much with a problem that will have it's full impact only decades into the future.

But if everyone is waiting for everyone else to be the first one (if they are scared and distrusting of one another) to start then nothing happens. As a matter of fact Denmark, Costa Rica, Scotland and Iceland have all just gone ahead and beyond, and managed to up their renewables to pretty much the large majority of their energy sources. And they havent collapsed economically. So there is a way. — Benj96

No there isn't, no way that isn't very costly anyway. They don't produce the majority of their energy with renewables, but the majority of their electricity, and that is typically only 20% of total energy consumption. First you need to electrify everything and then you need to up your electricity production without fossil fuels times 5 to get to the same levels of energy consumption.... never mind the pre-supposed continual growth (which implies even more energy) that is deemed necessarily to keep our economies running.

And no, Iceland (with warm water springing out of the ground), Denmark (surrounded by windy seas) and Costa Rica (no industry because their economy is tourism) are not representative at all for the rest of the world.

It's ironic that an obvious and needed reform in our power supply is being ignored because of a power struggle between nations. We are fiercely competitive with eachother trying to gain the upper hand meanwhile what we are competing over is an addictive yet toxic substance (oil). — Benj96

It's to be expected, we have been externalising environmental costs and other costs that don't directly impact us for the entirety of our history (maybe there were some exceptions, but they didn't make it in any case). It just so happens that up till recent we were not that numerous and nature was resilient enough to carry those costs for the most part.

National geopolitics should reflect a collective morality. — Benj96

They should but they don't, never have in the geopolitical arena... stamping your feet about the immorality of it won't get us closer to solving the problem.

Yeah as I said. You can't force people to do what you want as it's unethical. Hence why holding a barrel of a gun to someone's head (trying to force them to do what you want for fear of their lives) is generally accepted as illegal/criminal in most countries. You can try to force someone but your shouldn't - is what I'm saying. — Benj96

You can, but you shouldn't, sure, I can agree with that. Anyway, we going on a bit of a tangent here. My original point was not about morality, but about geo-political dynamics which is about nations, and not individuals and so not about morals really.

The US and China should (and are the only geopolitical powers that could) force other nations to follow their lead in phasing out carbon-based fuels otherwise it's not going to happen, because other nations trying to phase them out at an increased speed will suffer in a global market.

This is a simple idea really. You need energy for almost everything you produce. If energy-costs go up in one country (like it is the case now in Europe) prices go up and sales go down because we have a globalised market... and so companies fail or relocate to a place where costs are lower. At the end of this process political parties in power in that democratic country will lose because people don't like being unemployed and prices going up... so they get replaced by another political party that promises to get back the countries competitive edge. Doing the right thing doesn't get you elected just because it's the right thing.

Edit: And by 'forcing' I don't necessarily mean military force, although that could be part of it, but in the first place setting trade standards with the rest of the world so that carbon fueled goods cannot be sold.

Yes I believe beliefs that aren't extremely biased or one sided (not measured) tend to not be favoured over one's that are more balanced and consider multiple viewpoints and opinions. Secondly again yes - I think beliefs or observations that people think are true and honest tend to be taken on board more than blind random lying and unjustified ideation. — Benj96

This is an empirical question ultimately, and I think you are just wrong on this. Google and facebook know, their algorithms figured out long ago that what interest people is not measured and balanced, or even true, but rather what is polarising, extreme, and evoking strong emotions.

On the contrary it is and only ever has been a case of individual morals. Most countries are democracies. So every vote counts. By changing the individual opinion we thus slowly but surely change the general opinion. Democratic politicians want to appeal to the masses, and if an individual opinion has "gone viral" through logic and reason and ethical imperative, then politicians take that on board.

It's foolish to think one individual opinion doesn't count when it's highly agreeable. If it's highly agreeable then it's likely to become the opinion of many. And the opinion of many has clout. It makes a difference. — Benj96

No. Reason and rhetoric are not the same. People are hardly, if ever, convinced by reason.

You cannot force others to change, you can only live and breathe your beliefs and if others accept such beliefs as sensible then well, your beliefs "catch fire" and spread far and wide. — Benj96

Sure you can, the barrel of a gun is probably one of the most effective ways to make people do what you want. But I wasn't talking about people, but about nations... people don't matter all that much in this case.

The only thing you have to do to change the world is think thoroughly and in a measured/balanced way and trust that others will do the talking for you. If that wasn't the case how would anyone's ideas (artistic, innovative, technological, religious, educative, etc) ever spread beyond themselves? — Benj96

Because implementing those idea's can give you some kind of advantage? Do you think they get taken on just because they are measured and balanced, or true?

I don't think one particular thing or event will move the needle all that much. Sure it would be bad, but so are a lot of things, not in the least the fact that we have that much greenhouse gasses in the air already, which means a certain amount of rise in temperature is already locked in for the next 30 years or so.

More than certain political parties winning in this or that country, the issue we have and have had for the past 30 years is mostly global and systemic. This is not an issue of individual morals or even of national politics, but largely because of game theory tending towards tragedy of the commons. Fossil fuels is power (and not that easy to replace contrary to somewhat popular opinion), and countries are locked in geopolitical struggle always... which means those that would stop using carbon fuels first loose out, and so they don't.

The only possible way out of this particular prisoner's dilemma is the main geopolitical powers, the US and China, both unilaterally or maybe in a bilateral agreement, deciding to phase out fossil fuels in a short timeframe and forcing the rest of the world to follow. So maybe it could be about national politics after all, but only in a couple of countries, Brazil doesn't matter that much.

https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022

"The report shows that updated national pledges since COP26 – held in 2021 in Glasgow, UK – make a negligible difference to predicted 2030 emissions and that we are far from the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C.

Policies currently in place point to a 2.8°C temperature rise by the end of the century. Implementation of the current pledges will only reduce this to a 2.4-2.6°C temperature rise by the end of the century, for conditional and unconditional pledges respectively.

The report finds that only an urgent system-wide transformation can deliver the enormous cuts needed to limit greenhouse gas emissions by 2030: 45 per cent compared with projections based on policies currently in place to get on track to 1.5°C and 30 per cent for 2°C."

Urgent system-wide transformation is unlikely. Enormous investments are needed for that world-wide, and with things getting progressively worse geopolitically, economically and also energy-security wise, investments that only re-pay themselves in the long term seem to be getting more difficult as we get deeper into it. Saying only urgent system-wide transformation would do it, is essentially the same as saying we won't make those targets.

Or at least what purpose or role do these books serve? — Bret Bernhoft

Re-evaluation of values, is the short answer... more specifically re-evaluation of values after our belief in the Gods or the God of old had waned. His writings are essentially a bunch of perspectives on these values, after they had lost their foundation, and so were in need of another justification, which people hadn't realized yet.

And by what process does one evolve their nature/constitution according to Nietzsche? Pain? Suffering? Incremental progress? Discipline? By developing a perfect rear-naked choke? One cannot merely demand that they stop being average and expect to stop being average - coming from someone who is painfully average in most ways.

Or did he just not focus on that? Maybe I'm treating him too much like a motivational speaker. — ToothyMaw

Yes I don't think his audience was the average man.

I think he had an idea of a hierarchy or an ordering of instincts or drives. A well turned out man has these instincts ordered in particular ways, that worked for them and in their environment. I think he did view suffering and pain certainly as being instrumental in that process, but not exclusively so. The whole of life could be seen as an opportunity for trial and error.

Josh has the right idea about his general epistemology, if you could call it that. We can only come closer to truth through falsification, through error. We need categorization, "containers to put empirical data in", even if those don't really exist in some strict delineated way in reality and are ultimately arbitrary. This is one of his key insight IMO, that they are not polar opposites (as philosophers are prone to view them), but one is a condition for the other. A lot follows from that... it's better to try something, anything, even if it turns out to be wrong, than nothing at all.

Maybe that could even be a very crude summary of his philosophy, you try stuff and you fail, you try again, ad infinitum... and you learn to love the process along the way.

What is there to debate?

They should be building nuclear plants en masse non stop.

Winter is coming.

Objective and subjective on a spectrum is maybe not so bad a way of looking at it.

Maybe better still is to forget about the distinction altogether, they are just words.

We view things from a perspective, and those are at best partial views of "reality"... some are a bit wider and a little less partial than others.

The short answer is universalism is an invention of monotheistic religions.

Is it possible to be morally wrong even if one is convinced to do the right thing? — Matias

Yes you can be wrong by the standards of contemporary moral understanding.

Another related question could be: is it possible to be morally wrong retroactively? — Matias

No, as morality is determined by socio-historical context, this doesn't even make sense.

Note that morality is relative to a certain socio-historical context, not relative 'within' a certain context, which is what people generally seem to be confusing.