So you don’t know.

Chill out, brother. Who said it was a joke? It’s an experiment.

Forgive me, I thought you were trying to have an adult conversation. My fault. — Xtrix

Well it’s sort of adult. You have to use your imagination, like war games.

Is this also what madness is, to be only aware of yourself?

When the economy flips, how big will the blood bath be? — ernestm

Flips in what way?

, they can convince a sizable number of those who actually do vote to vote for leaders who are actively pushing us in the direction of the extinction. — Xtrix

Okay. Put a freeze on elections. Climate deniers are removed from office. A climate coup is enacted. Media must apply for new registration. Those that print contrary reports are to be fined or threatened with imprisonment. Corporations are put on notice.

As I said, only China and India will contribute CO2.

Would any group jeopardise it’s survival in a moral cause?
— Brett
I would think some would. We know this happens at the individual level. — Coben

I think this is true, but not in the numbers to be considered as human nature. This is more of a sacrifice. It could be said that Britain risked its survival fighting against Naziism in the name freedom. But it had no choice, it’s survival was under threat. It did not purposely risk its survival.

But we have to also notice that contradictory morals have lasted a long time in different groups — Coben

larger groups, like those in what gets called civilization, may have different moral centers - government and religion or even various religious groups, as one more obvious example - with differing moralities. — Coben

Is that really true? Are their moral centres that are different?

I don't think a generation is enough. — Coben

I meant that a set of morals could deteriorate in a generation, an evolving set of morals would take longer, but only if they served the community well.

You don’t have to ‘feel’ collaboration for it to occur, and it certainly doesn’t require common goals as such. Collaboration only requires that the outcome, not necessarily the motive, is the same. — Possibility

How is there an outcome without a motive? Could that happen?

Once we can recognise and predict the outcome we’re chasing — Possibility

How do we recognise the outcome we’re chasing, who’s outcome, how do we arrive at it?

Once we determine where we want to go, what we hope to achieve, then collaboration is the most effective means to achieve this; the ONLY means to achieve anything. — Possibility

This might have been the case once, but it may not be the only way for people to reach their goals anymore, and I say reach their goals because they are individual goals.

Diversity puts a strain on collaboration. There are far more “tribes” with different agenda than we’ve ever had. Communities no longer have common goals. Who do you collaborate with? those with similar goals. Diversity creates adversity.

Collaboration might be like the vestigial organs in humans. It still seems to be part of being human and we act it out but it does nothing anymore and many no longer truly feel it.

To define collaboration as ‘working together for a common goal’ implies motive, — Possibility

I think this is probably true. Someone cannot just create the idea of collaboration because they can sense a motive, it has to exist first. Motive can’t create a human trait.

And how do we evaluate how well something like a moral is working? what's the time frame? and isn't that a moral value in itself, that the good will make things better for the group? This would mean for example that the group would never,jeapordize its survival in a moral cause. I think many would say that could be immoral. — Coben

It seems to me that morals have a function, otherwise they would disappear over time with the tribe/community they didn’t serve well. The morals that we live by are the inherent morals that contributed to a successful society. They bound us together and served as the basis for what was best for the community, what was regarded as “ good” and “ right” and from which our values and ethics sprung from, that acted out those morals

I don’t know what the timeframe is to determine whether a moral is working. But if it wasn’t working I imagine trouble would be apparent within one generation which would lead to slow deterioration. The moral value isn’t that the “ good’ will make things better for the group, it’s that what makes things better for the group becomes the moral value. Time will decide if the morals they live by were the most advantageous. I’m not suggesting that a community can simply decide on a set of morals in a relativist manner. The Stalinists and the Nazis chose a set of morals on that basis and lost very quickly. It may take awhile for a set of morals to evolve, but they will continue to evolve if they serve the community well, as opposed to the quick end if there are no advantageous.

Would any group jeopardise it’s survival in a moral cause? On the basis of what I’ve suggested that would be immoral, which is not what you meant, I think.

I would suggest he knows what he's talking about. — Punshhh

He’s a banker.

Whether they manage to take any knowledge with them, is the worry. Otherwise we may go back to square one again, and start all over again, as we have done before. — Punshhh

So, from modern man right back to Homo Sapiens Sapiens, barely able to retain the knowledge to make tools.

There is no possible way of renewables replacing fossil fuels in a few years, which is the only way fossil fuels will become worthless. Do you really imagine that in a few years China and India will change to renewables?

f I can admit that I am prone to this kind of behaviour, that it's my nature and the nature of others to paint this pretty picture and present an image of ourselves that is pristine, can this be useful and how? — Judaka

I think it would be useful for many things; it keeps the wheels of society running smoothly, reduces tension, encourage inclusiveness, it’s democratic, it’s the basis of our success as a species. But, does it breed mediocrity, does it hold us back? Was modern society built on collaboration or fiercely independent individuals?

I’ve being thinking about this lately; the idea that philosophy is action. I haven’t any reference to philosophers who might fit that idea; Sartre decided he needed to take to the streets, action over writing, Machiavellian is of interest or the idea of the Warrior King who carries the book and sword.

Are we really getting anywhere with this consensus we fall back on. If climate change is the problem people imagine does it require strong individuals to drive through change? Is that the revolution? Is Trump just the first of what will come, of individuals intelligent and strong who take what’s needed, who drive through their objectives, and is that a good or bad thing?

This has got me thinking about people who do not collaborate. Are these the people that really contribute towards our advancement, who drive themselves towards their objective, maybe their destiny which they’re aware of.

ARe their no evil moral principles? Hitler could be seen as following moral principals. — Coben

This is an interesting point. My feelings about morals are that they are inherent and that they contributed towards our successful evolution and consequently those morals were carried through with us. But if a moral is a way of behaving that contributes to the success of a group, that throws it forward into the future so that it thrives even further, then does it have to be moral in the sense of being good, or right, as we understand it?

It does seem that the societies or communities that have this concept of morals are the most successful. But what if, for instance, it becomes necessary to reduce the world population in order to survive, does that become the right moral decision?

I don't think i ever got to defining what philosophy is most of the days. — Jak

I wouldn’t think about it too much.

Only a group of philosophers would sit around trying to decide whether their inaction in saving a man was responsible for his death, when everyone else would just dive in.

Philosophy exists only in action.

This was not the first, not the last time in history where one had to deny his or her own hard wire. — god must be atheist

Wouldn’t it be fair to say, though, that despite being forced to live “as if” they never gave up their faith, never gave up what they were hardwired for, despite being forced to live a lie.

Extremists would call it the coward's refuge instead of a rational position. — Gnomon

I’m not thinking that myself. It may very well be a rational choice in relation to what you seek. I’m afraid even that sounds a little ambiguous though, because in the end your position is relative to your nature, which we might assume is hardwired.

But we’re all the same in obtaining one. — Mww

Do you mean our reasons for doing so?

Well you can’t have it both ways. The library of human knowledge? How did we ever get by pre internet, how did we develop the world we live in without the internet?

And we could stop going on the internet, using the power grid to drive our computers or charge our phone batteries. Maybe get by without a mobile as we once did.

96% of climate scientists agree that the current rate of global warming is our fault. — Lif3r

That would pretty hard to prove, which is why there’s no reference I guess.

It’s quite clear, they’re subtly jumping ship.

Edit: sorry, changing horses.

Not true. Voters rejected labor on many grounds but climate change hardly figured. — Wayfarer

What ever your thoughts, and whatever the many grounds, the voters rejected them and their climate change policy.

“This has been called the climate change election, and with good reason: concern about the climate and environment has never been greater.”
(https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/12/the-climate-change-election-where-do-the-parties-stand-on-the-environment).

"The People" (you, me, and most others) are not in a position to effect the critical changes — Bitter Crank

The small percentage of the population who actually own the mines, oil wells, refineries, factories, and so on refuse to give up the source of their great wealth. — Bitter Crank

The Australian voters elected a conservative part (The Liberals) in the recent elections. In choosing the Liberals they rejected the climate change policy of the opposition (Labour). So the people did have an effect, and it was a critical move, it just wasn’t the one people such as yourself would have wanted. Labour got only 1/3 of the popular vote. The voters most definitely had an effect.

That vote also made clear the stake and support that the voters had in the mines, the export of coal and coal fired power stations owned by a small percentage and did not wish to give up that source.

Does real philosophy take place in action, is the street the only true place to live out your philosophy, can it be applied to the street? Otherwise what purpose does it serve? If you feel it doesn’t need a purpose then what is it you’re doing?

If you’re on the Internet, typing away, arguing about justified belief or whether we’re moral features, are you actually engaged in philosophy?

Are we really living our philosophical ideas in posts on this forum?

As @Judaka asks, are we talking about ethics, values, collaboration but not actually living them out there in the world where the rules change from street to street, the true reality in action.

Under pressure would we maintain those ethical ideas we claim to find so essential for living and so important in our concern for others. Are we really just living out a philosophy of inaction? No harm done, but no good either.

Now, the problem is that since this is rightly described as an illusion, or even delusion, the people who see through this illusion have no desire to act on this premise, regardless of how dangerous the pollutants actually are. So the premise of this "climate change" movement is faulty, because it cannot get action from the people it needs to get action from. If instead, we address the various pollutants such as CO2, and describe exactly why the pollutant is harmful, and why emissions ought to be controlled, rather than launching into nebulous ideas about human beings having the power to change the climate, the movement would probably have more credibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well put.

I’d likewise argue that everyone is always trying to believe whatever is true — Pfhorrest

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that a philosopher should be able to challenge his own beliefs in what is true. And by doing that then find he may be wrong.

Maybe we are all different when we come to talk about philosophy.

My experience of it is that I was involved in some part of my life, some occupation, or exploration about living and someone would say “So and so has something to say about that” and I would check it out and digest it. As I got older I would find myself in different situation and the same sort of comment would come up again about different philosophers or philosophies. At some stage I stepped back and tried to see if there was some pattern or consistency.

Sometimes what I’d thought no longer worked for me, it just didn’t resonate as well as it had but it had already led me to other things.

It seems to me my philosophy has come from experience first. Like a permanent evolution.

@Bitter creek in another OP said he saw a bright streak of “ mystical romantic idealism” in my posts. Do I, without even knowing it?

As a young millennial I'd have to say that the problem of climate change terrifies me greatly, — Mr Bee

What are you “terrified” of?

Who do you mean when you say “ not enough” are prepared to make the effort and what is the effort required of them?

Whether your philosophy is hardwired or not, you can behave and advocate as if you believed the opposite to what you are hardwired for. — god must be atheist

Yes. But can it only be “as if”? Can one live it as real and override what you’re hardwired for? Assuming we’re moral creatures (you may or may not agree) were quite capable of not acting morally, so going against what we’re hardwired for.

No, not possible. For example, I came to realize that conclusions about ethics outside the regulatory framework and system of religious law can only be spurious. — alcontali

Do you recall how this came about?

In my experience, people do change. But it takes time. — thing

Like stepping stones, one philosopher to the next as you grow.

Which raise the question of whether staying with one philosopher or position is really growing philosophically?

As a result of all these conflicting external influences on my hardwired nature, I now tend to both instinctively and deliberately choose philosophers and philosophies that fall somewhere in the moderate middle, between conservative duty and liberal opportunity. Is that "free" choice illusory, or effective, or a cop-out? Who knows? — Gnomon

It's the old Nature vs Nurture conundrum. I — Gnomon

This is probably where we always end up with such discussions. Your optimist/distressed duality can possibly be the result of parents imprinting behaviour. (Whether we’re born with a clean slate I don’t know. Not completely I suspect). You instinctively choose philosophers that fall in the middle. Instinctively because you seek a balance instead of extremes. The instinct us against taking risks. So your choice of philosophers doesn’t seem to be so much a choice as finding yourself in a comfort zone.
That seems a bit like going with the flow, (no insult intended).
There have been individuals who have turned their backs on their cultural norms and chosen other paths. Some have rejected their religion, or embraced Marxism or even fascism. Though cultural norms say nothing about who they are, I guess. All they have done is make their own choice.

My interest is still whether each individual finds what they need in philosophy, not what is right or logical, but what satisfies their inclination (because it’s not always about right and logic, is it?) or whether those inclinations can change over time and so chose another direction in philosophy.

Are we seekers of truth or seekers of confirmation about things? Can your position of being in the middle be called a truth, or comfort?

This might be a rant but I’ll leave it up anyway.

Notice, I wrote "can". You jump into wrong conclusions. — god must be atheist

So, for instance, an apparatchik of the communist party is overriding his hardwired beliefs in individualism and cooperation and choosing party ideology. Or is that ideology hardwired in him? — Brett

So then, back to the beginning.

An apparatnyichkaya Gyevotchka can pretend to be a communalist, in order to serve her individualism. — god must be atheist

So, no such thing as a communist, just an opportunist.

I think one of the problems is that when you hear that the earth’s temperature might warm by 2.5 degrees, a lot of people say ‘so what? Temperatures change by more than that every hour.’ They don’t realise the fundamental importance of what used to be called ‘the balance of nature’. — Wayfarer

The only thing you mention specifically in your post in relation to the fires is this comment on temperature changes. So it seems to suggest you connect the fires to temperatures. Maybe I read it wrong.