Marcuse was into sustainability? Cool. Still not seeing the point. — Mikie

Not only was marcuse into it, he laid out the central theory of sustainability that has been increasingly put into practice within many domains of society in our time. And my only point was to find out who you factored as key pioneers on the notion of sustainability.

But since you insist on some deeper point, I will oblige. It would seem to me, that if a person were to be unaware of Marcuse's contribution to the core ideas of "sustainability", yet that same person had bought in wholesale to the popular narrative of the climate crisis and its solutions, it would be extremely reasonable to assume that same person has been brainwashed by popular media. Such a person might even seek out and consume studies and statistics that are strategically dispersed by the perpetrators of the official narrative in order to reinforce the narrative in his closed mind. And that would mean that the programming has taken hold.

The question I am left asking is: why would the perpetrators of the official narrative conveniently fail to ever mention Herbert Markuse, and pretend like the popular notions of sustainability are relatively new and original? Something smells very fishy.

...But you're asking for a reason, so let's not pretend you're interested in any answers. Just make your point. — Mikie

Actually, the answers are exactly what I wanted. I actually haven't heard of any of the people you mentioned (researching them now).

But I was hoping amongst that listing you had mentioned the great Herbert Marcuse.

From the little I've gathered, Marcuse was a major influence on Paul Hawken. And regarding Marcuse, I heavily oppose many of the tenets that factor into his ideas on sustainability. However, I could envision a post-Marcusian version of sustainability that would lend to less radically divisive and tyrannical solutions.

Why then do you always seem to present yourself as an extreme right wing nut job? Is it just performance? — Mikie

There are a few answers.

In a strong sense, it is performance, but that is not all due to my antics, there is an inherent art to philosophy that requires a certain quality of performance.

I have a rebellious philosophical nature, and I am compelled to reject whatever I perceive as status quo (for good or bad), and, as of late (as i perceive), many leftist policies have taken on the lame stench of the status quo.

Lastly, perhaps you have drifted so far to the left that you have been radicalized to the point that almost everything appears right-leaning to you. Perhaps not, i don't know you personally. No insult intended here.

Your addressing the actual questions were more reasonable than I'd expect, and this part especially. I happen to agree. — Mikie

Nice! It's kind of an honor to share common ground with the likes of you :wink: :grin:

Also, it is strategically wise to set up expectations...philosophical manipulation 101 :chin:

Who is it? — frank

:lol:
That's what I'm asking @Mikie!

Yay — frank

Yay to you, you instigator :wink: :chin:

You're welcome. Your parroting such stupid, simplistic ideas always gives me a chuckle. — Mikie

I am happy to oblige. Perhaps you will oblige me. Who are the key pioneers on the notion of sustainability?

I didn't see a thread yet, so I figured it's worth creating one.

Being in the middle of crushing heat waves, draughts, and floods all at the same time here in 2021, even those climate "skeptics" are saying we should probably do something -- just in case all the world's climatologists are correct.

[1&2]Is it already too late?

[1&2]If so, will we reach tipping points no matter what policies we enact?

[3]If it's not too late, what exactly can we do to contribute to mitigating it?

[6]Is there ANYONE out there who still doesn't consider this the issue of our time? — Mikie

I didn't realize you started this thread. :up: How long has it been since your original questions have been directly addressed? 2 years? Allow me.

1&2: I am optimistic, so... no. Human ingenuity has a solid historic record of creating solutions to its problems. There is no historical data on the degeneration of past civilizations, so we have zero reference on whether or not we have reached the tipping point. In fact, when we look at a more recent potentially world ending phenomena, nuclear warfare, humanity's solution has worked quite successfully so far. Because cooperation amongst competing powers in that case would seem much less likely than eventual cooperation in the case of environmental protection, there is even more reason to be optimistic.

3: it is all about cooperation that averages out into a better way of life for all. It starts with an open discourse about solutions that do not encroach on people's ways of life (except, perhaps, for the mega wealthy). The more that sustainability goals are perceived to diminish the quality of life for the average working man, the more incentive for resistance to sustainability goals.

6: yes. I guarantee you that Christians and Muslims alike are more concerned with eschatologicsl considerations of the human soul. And me. I still hold nuclear warfare to be a bigger issue. I also consider Covid a bigger issue, not the disease, but humanity's pathetic and cowardly response to it (such a species deserves to be wiped out by a climate apocalypse).

I think it's very very unlikely, astronomically unlikely, to be extra terrestrial. — flannel jesus

Personally, I am a big fan of the interdimensional and the illegal types

:lol: — frank

:rofl: — Mikie

Thank you very much, you have been a wonderful audience.

Well I'm m single handedly changing the climate so it's similar to what they have in Venus, so taking a little flak is the least I can do. — frank

I'm sure you wouldn't catch so much heat if you would only speak as a malcontented little prick like the rest of the doomed apparatchiks.

Thanks for the feedback. — frank

Got put in your place, huh? You are so lucky getting such constructive feedback. I'm jealous.

Bronze age economies were kind of like communism. But yes, it's a world where nothing ever changes. There is no innovation. — frank

Even Dengism merely produces knockoffs of western innovations, but at least it is producing.

What do you mean? Capitalism can't help but be unsustainable? — frank

I was just correcting the correlation:

Racism is as essential to capitalism — unenlightened

And I don't believe capitalism is ultimately unsustainable. It is the only system we know of that is capable of producing novelty and innovating technologies that might be able to counteract the climate crisis. We can see how communism in ussr failed by stagnating in all production and innovation, and ccp was forced to betray its marxist principles by adopting Dengism in order to compete on the global stage. The only way Communism could only succeed in creating a sustainable world be by regressing civilization back into the stone age.

Racism is as essential to capitalism as sexism is to patriarchy — unenlightened

I don't mean to nitpick, but unsustainability is to capitalism, as sexism is to patriarchy, as racism is to white imperialism...woe to the oppressed.

They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time. — frank

I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary.

Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly. — frank

These uncowardly lions would be labeled terrorists no doubt.

When I'm in the woods something unwinds inside me that I didn't even know was up tight. — frank

You said it brother, there is no greater feeling of freedom than doing your duty out in the wilderness.

It doesn't require evidence — unenlightened

Evidence woud help relieve suspicions.

At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. — unenlightened

Good, we can agree on that. This certainly makes the green agenda in the west appear like a futile idealistic pipe-dream.

There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid. — unenlightened

I never meant to insinuate that China is stupid. On the contrary, China knows exaclty what it is doing, and one of those things is to exploit the West as it sits there neurotically with its thumb up its butt.

One example is its securing of rare resources that the West has become increasingly dependent on. And even if they are attempting to develop green technologies, they are too smart to implement it on a large scale until it has been proven to outperform the currently operating energy infrastructure.

I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists?  — frank

Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control.

I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness. — frank

I think the powers that be, which benefit from a totalitarian underground city, would never leave the surface alone and allow it to thrive. These are the most boring types, those who wish to impose their boring misery on others.

This is starting to feel allegorical.

There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating.

Or a nuclear sub probably. They go out for six months straight sometimes. — frank

That doesn't exactly dound like a picnic. Open pastures where I can run and frolic are more my cup-o-T.

But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
— Merkwurdichliebe — frank

Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city?

Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia. — frank

Definitely when it comes to invountary confinement. I know I wouldn’t thrive in a prison cell.

I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea. — frank

You should have led with it being Asimovian. And I didn't know we would have parks and surface access.

In that case I'm more open to it. But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.

Would you move to an underground city to reduce energy expenditure? — frank

Never, and if mandated by PTB, I would resist to the death. Underground cities are a bad omen for humanity.

China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. . .Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing. — unenlightened

Yes, and then everything will be perfect with rainbows and bubblegum and little fuzzy bunny wabbits.

How naive can you be? There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. And it would take the greatest of fools to believe that once China has attained global hegemony through its industrialization (while the west cripples its own energy infrastructure with green technology that is too worthless to steal), that it would sabatoge its own supremacy by reversing course into green policies.

Do you really now? — Janus

Well, after you put it that way, I suppose not. But I would like to.

I just want to thank you for this comment. . .it's so good to have an adult voice calling out for acceptance without further discussion of the whatever regarding the whatever. — frank

You're very welcome my good sir <removes tophat and bows>.

As I said before, the west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies damaging their economy. — Agree-to-Disagree

The West is stupid regardless.

It goes deeper than kneecapping the economy and reducing the general standard of living for all but the super wealthy. The west is opening the door for China to become the global hegemon. And it is unlikely that the imperial agenda that China would impose upon the west would be at all concerned with environmental sustainability. We all know China would devour the entire west for the benefit of ccp.

It is a fact that the "climate crisis" is inevitable as long as China does not get on board with the green agenda.

If the west did not have its head up its ass, its strategy would be to pause on the green agenda and exert what imperial power it has left to gain enough leverage so that it could impose a mandatory green policy on China (as well as other major perpetrators). Then once that's done go full throttle on its own greenwork.

If only it were that easy.

No idea, do you have an opinion on that? — Janus

Not really, I just assume the experts have it all figured out and are selflessly working for our best interests.

Paine believed Biden’s lie that Trump never denounced white supremacists and furthered that lie up until just recently. Instead of indignation of those who duped him, he now spreads the conspiracy theory that the person who informed him of the truth is part of a scheme to infiltrate anti-Trump echo-chambers. The rot must begin right at the top. — NOS4A2

Who is Paine?

Sh, adults are talking. Go back to chit-chatting and don’t worry yourself about it. — Mikie

yeah, you dummy. What is your problem: trying to have a reasonable conversation on a philosophy forum. Jeesh...maybe you should find some children if you're trying to have a real philosophical discussion...but not here . . . Isnt that right @Mikie. :grin: :wink: :grin: :wink:

don't ever forget how easiy it is to fake one's dutifulness. It is one of the simplest and most detrimental deceptions.

The west is stupid if they are not worried about green policies undercutting their economy. The west will probably shift a lot of their manufacturing and production to places like China. China will be very happy about this. China doesn't want green policies to get in the way of this bonanza. — Agree-to-Disagree

This makes me wonder who in the west would benifit from the arrangement you have predicted. Is it crazy to look at those who push for the most radical green policies?

Are you saying that we all are predominately motivated by a sense of duty or do you just mean to say that we all introject some sense of duty and that ideally it should supersede all other motives if, on account of our social natures, we want to thrive? Or are you making a categorical Kantian-type claim that reason itself issues the imperative that duty be paramount? — Janus

The latter seems to be more likely. But he may be going deeper to the absolute nature of dutifulness (which he has articulated rather vurgarly as to be confusing: viz. "duty"), and not to a moral imperative, if you get my meaning. [Add.: Not everyone is capable of dutifulness] And in that sense, there IS naery a thing that we can point to as a greater motis operandi.

If duty is such a strong motivator, and one such duty is to do good, why are the current circumstances so in dire need of "rising up"? Has that duty of good-doing been inactive until now? Was it impotent? — Judaka

The sense of duty, in this case, was impotent. Too small and weak to command any serious commitment from the dutiful types.

How can you say:

Motivation comes from inside. — T Clark

Then say:

A desire to avoid the judgment of others. — T Clark

Isn't that contradictory?

Generally, though, when people start talking about "duty" I detect the acrid odor of social control. — BC

Definitely can appear that way. Like when the duty of loyalty results in bad things for the loyal one. But this kind of duty can be directed towards non-social things, particularly ideas that alienate the dutiful one from the social and/or human. And this begs that our understanding of duty should be able to account for things that lack the acrid odor of social control.

The sense of duty that one feels is purely psychological. It is an internal state state directed at service to an objective, whether social or otherwise. However, it is not the relation of the dutiful one toward his objective that matters, rather it is his commitment to his duty that is important. I suppose, from this perspective, I can understand the op definition.

I will define duty as: a feeling of obligation brought about by expectation that is irreducible — ToothyMaw

It is the obligation that is irreducible because in the mind of the dutiful, he is making the greatest commitment one can make. And given the few things man has control over in his life, commitment to his duty, in victory or failure, is one of those things one can completely self-determine. The objective or expectation can alter and shift, or become unattainable, or even be a matter of unintelligible faith, but the commitment to the sense of duty always remains under the individual's control.

Or else they understand that they have no choice but to do that, or else collapse or at least retrogress economically, which would be seen to be an economic, political and social disaster by them. — Janus

Interesting. Why would China be worried about green policies undercutting their economy? The west doesn’t appear to be worried about it. Could it be the case that western economies possess some attribute that can mitigate the potential economic fallout of green policies?

If it accomplishes our goals whereas democracy, or in the case of the global political scene, anarchy, doesn't, then why not? — frank

That sounds awfully rational.

One possibility would be that scrubbing technology could be developed to make coal plants carbon neutral. But what incentive would make that economical? — frank

The incentive would be that we wouldn't need to inevitably fubar the grid and effectively cripple the economy by disintegrating coal plants. . . We either create that technology, or prepare for drastically diminished standards of living (excepting China of course).

Well, Xi Jinping is a chemical engineer by training. — LuckyR

With that in mind...The very fact that he is not spending his time inventing alternatives for coal power plants shows that he doesn't "give a flying fuck", to use the words of a wise man.

if I didn't know any better, I'd be inclined to think China rejects the science of climate change

it's similar in US. But at least we know the people have some say since Trump was elected.