Was I getting off track? — Possibility

No. I was really referring back to Wallows OP on his mix of philosophy and psychology.

I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses. — Brett

Having said that it occurs to me that though both sexes may have similar or equal capabilities, it doesn’t then follow that they apply them the same way.

I’m still trying to figure out what this has to do with the future of philosophy.

I'd just refer to the scientists that study such things, and then perhaps ask: What's the worst that can happen if we (try to) do something about it? And weighed against the risks of doing nothing? — jorndoe

I thought I just did that.

I personally don’t see the focus on interpersonal relationship as a distinctly feminine perspective, — Possibility

No, nor do I. But it’s a problem dealing with people who still insist it’s true. I’m not referring to Gilligan, but to people who insist that one sex is incapable of what the other possesses.

Correcting such mistakes just makes it easier for your readers. — Andrew M

But it makes comments about the error on the following posts confusing.

Well I don’t like to actually edit an OP. My correction is still clear at the bottom.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

Edit: and Janus had corrected it in the following post.

“According to Gilligan, there are two kinds of moral voices: that of the masculine and the feminine. The masculine voice is "logical and individualistic",[10] meaning that the emphasis in moral decisions is protecting the rights of people and making sure justice is upheld. The feminine voice places more emphasis on protecting interpersonal relationships and taking care of other people. This voice focuses on the "care perspective,"[11] which means focusing on the needs of the individual in order to make an ethical decision. For Gilligan, Kohlberg's stages of moral development were emphasizing the masculine voice, making it difficult to accurately gauge a woman's moral development because of this incongruity in voices.”

But, feminist ethics, is primarily concerned with the characteristics that denote what constitutes a female. — Wallows

“The characteristics that denote what constitutes a female”, who’s defining these characteristics and are they saying the characteristics are imposed or a constitutional part of being female?

So’ virtual ethics’ applied to females; can you clarify?

virtue ethics applied to females, such as ethics of care. — Wallows

By ‘applied’ do you mean what’s expected of them, or who they are?

A revival. What ethics do you mean? Do you mean something that has drifted or got lost along the way?

I think there’s maybe two groups of people on this forum; those who want to “do” philosophy and those who use it to reflect on the world.

[quote="Banno;357401"
]Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?[/quote]

Is there really anything to talk about at all then? Why even be here?

My question is the more fundamental and so it must be answered first. — Bartricks

Okay.

Maybe. But the quest for the truth suggests that we are not content with things, that there is something better, truer out there, or in here. Is it possible the quest for truth, the definition of it a hopeless quest?

Well, I think the best way to proceed is to ask a slightly different question - when would we (that is, highly reflective rational truth-seekers) be satisfied that a true theory of truth has been described to us? That is, what would it take for us all to be satisfied that our question - 'what is truth?' - has been answered? — Bartricks

Sorry to answer with another question, but why do we want the truth, what do we want from it, what are we expecting?

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”

I agree.

Just say you don’t want to do it. I won’t mind.

Yes it’s a book. But I don’t understand a statement like yours on a philosophy forum. It doesn’t make sense. I put the link up to demonstrate that philosophy is hardly irrelevant in terms of climate change and others think so too.

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/climate-change-and-philosophy-9780826440655/

And Philosophy? It is irrelevant. — Banno

That’s an interesting comment. Philosophy has been done in the most dire of circumstances; the Russian gulags, prisoner of war camps and concentration camps. What it suggests is that philosophy is only applied to philosophy to be relevant.

Yes, my apologies. You’re correct.

My position from a Darwinian/Gaian/social point of view, probably fatalistic.

Through that I address point 6 and 9.

6) We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human world is restructured economically and socially by forces initially beyond our control. 1000 years before we reach the critical 4 degrees increase. There is upheaval. Much suffering. Population numbers fall, as a result of changes temperature levels fall. The changes are slow but relentless. Populations fall to manageable levels, a balance is eventually reached over people versus resources, where they live, how they live. The consequences affect social norms and how things have been done in the past which led to the global changes we are confronted with. The final outcome is one determined by seemingly random events and chaos that lead to stability. The possibility of extinction is averted.
Point 6 also allows for points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.


9) We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically and socially. We act quickly. Reports indicate we have 12 years to act. Changes are extreme. Loss of jobs, loss of confidence, change to economic systems. Psychological disturbances reach high levels. We exert control over our actions and how we want the planet to be. Climate change is averted at a catastrophic level. Population numbers continue to grow, changes in government affect peoples’ ability to make free choices. The way of life for all cultures is pushed to change. All decisions must revolve around the environment and resources. Ideas about ethics and values are repositioned. The possibility if extinction is averted. Everything about point 6 happens with the addition of high population, tension over resources, borders, co-operation. The balance is enforced by authoritarian government, possibly a world government like the UN. Tight management is necessary. The constant battle to maintain control breeds new problems.
Point 9 allows for 1, 2, 5, 8, 9.

:up:

In that book, you will find the well-known quote by him saying something like ‘should modern science show that some fundamental Buddhist belief is false then we should abandon it’. — Wayfarer

I think he’s says it in absolute confidence that they never will.

they all share the theme of there not being an "objective" reality — khaled

I’ve always had a good feeling forZen Buddhism and always found it very elusive. But my feeling is that they do believe there is an objective reality but that we can’t see it for looking. And so such statements as;

“Big mind is something to express, not something to figure out. Big mind is something you have, not something to seek for.”

Edit: Attachment is subjective.

people will migrate to water and to cities that have prepared for climate change — Lif3r

That’s an interesting point.

States today can chose there own way to combat climate change. But how does a state prepare for living with climate change, what form could they take that makes them different from other states except for natural resources? Unless they do have a dome. And we know who would get to live in the domes.

Careful; while I do see the pragmatic placement of the populations of earth argument you are trying to build and agree with the need for the effort, try not to veer too close to the caste system or if you are make sure to ingrain it with equality and egalitarianism as well as fairness and justice. I'm sure you get what I mean though. — Mark Dennis

I’m not suggesting we should do this. What I see is a totalitarian form of government because people will be required to do what is good for the state. Even now if you disagree with climate change you’re a pariah, in the future there will only be solutions, if you get my drift?

is global warming a challenge too great for humanity to handle? — Tim3003

Something that comes out of the climate change crisis is that we are not, after all, a global community. Scratch that one. We’re all states with our own interests.

Suddenly cultural differences really do matter.

Science has taken a blow to the head.

Any crisis will turn political.

We think we’re adaptable, but are we? The focus of the fight against climate change is rising temperatures, to stop or slow the increase. The culprit is carbon emissions. This is from an article Wayfarer posted:

“No plausible program of emission reduction alone can prevent climate change.”

But this from earth observatory.nasa.gov

“The levelling off (of heat) between the 1940’s and the 1970’s may be explained by natural variability and possibly by cooling effects of aerosols generated by the rapid economic growth after World War 11 ... The strong warming trend of the past three decades likely reflects a shift from comparable aerosol and greenhouse gas effects to a predominance of greenhouse gasses, as aerosols were curbed by pollution controls ...”

The rush to renewables, the politicking, the media sensationalism, the focus on reducing carbon emissions blinds us to other possibilities. Maybe we’re just punch drunk, but at some stage we have to be smarter.

So I don’t think the challenge is too great, but we won’t win it the way we’re doing it.

Sorry it didn't open the first time so i went back. Thanks.

Incremental change is no longer enough to stall off the potentially devastating effects of a changing climate, the report's authors write.

Are they devastating or not? We need to know what we’re dealing with. How do you deal with potential? How radical should our response be, in response to what exactly?

What the world needs now, they say, is "rapid and transformational action."

Even if this is the thing required I’m not sure if the cure is better than the disease. Can we handle such radical, quick transformation?

Incremental change is no longer enough to stall off the potentially devastating effects of a changing climate, the report's authors write.

What exactly are we contemplating? I’d like to hear specifics, not just that sea levels will rise, but what life would be like? Not all of us live near the sea, not everyone will be affected negatively by temperature rises. People will migrate, where?

[quote="Bitter Crank;356901"
]Economic recovery would have most people employed in a probably radically reorganized system of production ad distribution.[/quote]

What sort of system, what sort of government, would be needed to enact this. Does it mean people may have to move to seek work? Would the government take control of the movement of people? Would you have to live in areas relevant to your work or position or family size?

Has anyone really thought about this new world we’ll create?

[quote="Bitter Crank;356901"
]Economic recovery would have most people employed in a probably radically reorganized system of production ad distribution. It would, of necessity, be organized for low CO2 output. So people would be working, basic needs would be met.[/quote]

What do you imagine the psychological consequences would be to this happening in such a short time. I imagine huge consequences.

Unless .... I daren’t say it.

However, in a carbon-reduced economy, it would be quite a while before most people experienced an economic recovery. — Bitter Crank

Well of course ‘economic recovery’ would be viewed in a different sense. What’s an economic recovery? I imagine the effects of climate change as imagined would be different from what we have now. This is a gradual global change in geography, economics, borders, population, etc. What would be required living under conditions like that? What would population numbers be?


Edit: either way the world will not be like it is now.

That sounds like China.

The economic catastrophe would be shorter and less drastic than global overheating, but it would have to be deliberately engaged. — Bitter Crank

I don’t know if you can say that for a fact. It does seem to me that the effects of climate change would be far slower than an economic catastrophe in its effects.