Or, do unto others before they do it to you.

Yes.

As does deliberately misinforming the public, or at the very least presenting a situation to the public in a biased way. — Vera Mont

Two instances come to mind. The Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in 1964 may have been faked, but it justified the expansion of military action in Vietnam. Another, certainly faked, justification for war was Iraq's alleged purchase of "yellow cake" uranium from Niger for nuclear bomb work by Iraq. This provided one more excuse to invade Iraq.

During the war in Vietnam there was opposition early on -- initially quite small. By 1969 the opposition was very large. 500,000 people turned out for the Washington, D. C. anti-war demonstration in November of 1969. I was one of them. Across the country there were marches and mobilizations against the war involving millions of people registering their dissent from national policy.

The net result on the Nixon administration was minimal. The war went on and was even expanded. Those opposed to the war remained opposed but demonstrations proved insufficient to change administration policy.

The anti-war movement wasn't without effect, however. It did change the way a large number of people thought about war, the government, and national priorities. The majority were not persuaded.

The long series of civil rights demonstrations running from the 1950s into the 1970s achieved more concrete results and legislative change. Congress and legislatures enacted piecemeal changes which over time significantly reduced the immorality of racial discrimination. "Significantly reduced" but did not eliminate.

So, people sometimes find ways to publicly rebuke their governments and distance themselves from complicity. But complicity, responsibility, and guilt are difficult to avoid in complex society. For example, one might be in favor of equal rights and opportunity for blacks, but live in a long-segregated white suburb.

I don't have time to answer all messages — LFranc

IF you don't have time to reply to your responders then don't bother to start a thread. You don't have to respond immediately -- hours later is fine,

There are circles of widening responsibility for an elected leaders actions, but the leaders and initiators of crimes are most responsible and responsible first. John F. Kennedy (President 1960-1963) is responsible for the planned (and ill-conceived) invasion of Cuba. He didn't hatch this plan by himself -- there were a few dozen people near the top of the government who were involved.

I bear no responsibility for what Kennedy did. I was 16 at the time; but I would not have been responsible had I been older. Richard Nixon (President 1969-1974) didn't start the war in Viet Nam, but he did continue and expand it. Nixon had many supporters among the populace, as well as opponents. I was opposed. The invasion of Cuba was secretive. The war in Vietnam was public. Many people voted for Nixon (twice), supported his policies, and so on. Supporters bore some small responsibility for Nixon's actions.

One thing to remember here is that the public is not CONSULTED in any meaningful way about planned military or other actions that may or may not be criminal. The lack of consultation or ability to intervene in top administration activities severely limits responsibility.

Donald Trump, may he rot in hell, might not pay his bills but that doesn't make the bills disappear.

I have heard that there are good, honest politicians.

and all debts — Vera Mont

Just the crimes. All debts remain collectable.

He talks too straight for that job. — Sir2u

Absolutely. Politicians have a forest full of weasel words -- words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said when in fact only a vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant claim has been communicated. Then there are loads of lies, because politicians the world over are a mendacious lot -- it goes with the territory. "Is your country going to invade Ivanistan?" "Of course not! We are a peace-loving nation!" Meanwhile, the tanks are rolling across the border.

Lying, thieving, sneaking, conniving, knavery... It's what politicians do.

That makes cents.

Time travel is impossible — Sir2u

If time travel were impossible, they wouldn't be selling tickets, would they. If time travel were impossible, I wouldn't have bought a ticket, would I.

So you don't want to go with me. Anything you want me to bring back for you? (There would be fees...)

Nobody seems interested in my 200 years-in-the-future trip to Boston to see how the predicted catastrophic changes are panning out. Is time travel into the future anymore complicated than time travel into the past?

Thank you for these useful, perceptive and thoughtful responses. The tickets are non-refundable, so I'm still going. Maybe I'll be back (per @Vera Mont) or I'll be stuck in the cellars of the Coliseum cleaning up gore from upstairs (per @180 Proof).

I guess I'll have to do a crash course in Latin before I go.

Maybe there are other theories about time travel that will allow more travel flexibility and convenience.

If I should decide to to alter the course of the future (from 24 a.d. forward) do you have any particular requests?

Oh I see, you're going to be as much trouble in the past as you are in the present. What to do, what to do?

As a time-traveler, you should not be visible even in 1 second past time. The present moment is very short, and if you are not in it, you do not exist in the present.

Apparently you can not be in two places at once.

My gadfly challenge to humanity is this: Change to wisdom as a base or decline into near insignificance. As is the nature of reality, wisdom is universally reviled as a set of impossible ideals. — Chet Hawkins

Well, Mr. Gadfly, what is the wisdom to which we should switch over? The dictionary says...

"Wisdom: the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment."

but this doesn't get us any closer to what exactly we should do. I agree that we ought to change. I have a list of changes we could / should make. Lots of people have these lists, and many of the items are excellent recommendations. "The List" isn't the problem. The problem is motivation -- the compulsion individuals must feel that leads them to act, to change (for the better or for the worse, depending).

My guess is that individuals attempt change their behavior when their material circumstances present enough motivation to change. A farmer gives up his land when persistent drought and heat ruins the farm. Parents migrate long distances when there are no longer opportunities for themselves or their children to survive. People make serious efforts to lose weight when the doctor tells them "diet or die".

I live a much less stressful, happier, simpler life now than I did 20 years ago. Wisdom didn't motivate the change: circumstances that were beyond my control forced new circumstances into my life.

If wisdom has an effect, it comes in when we have to decide what to do next, usually under difficult circumstances. ("Life is what we do while we make other plans.") I don't happen to know what to tell someone who has a family, a mortgage, student loans, and car payments what they should do if their means of earning a living is pulled out from under them. Simplify? Get rid of the cars? Sell the house? Put everyone in the house to work? Go live in a tent? Get a new career? Shoot yourself? What?

My options as a single man were/are not the same as a man who has a family. What is wisdom for me might be folly for them.

I'm 77. I don't know how a 27 year old should respond to the challenges he or she is facing in the years ahead.

The Buddha misquote site is quite a rich vein. For instance, “Chaos is inherent in all compounded things. Strive on with diligence.”

I thought it was DECAY is inherent in all compounded beings.

I know that it comes from French. The statement that an English word comes from Latin is in most cases comedic, as English has nothing to do with Latin. How could it? — Lionino

There is nothing Latin about English, French was the language of culture in England for 300 years, not Latin.

English did not exist during Roman times. — Lionino

There is nothing persuasive about your argument.

I agree that English has nothing to do with Latin. It's a Germanic, not a Roman[tic] language. The French contributions to English vocabulary didn't change English grammar.

You have made this objection before. I don't understand why you think a word that entered English from Old French doesn't itself have roots in Latin. There would be no Old French without Latin.

Many fights are lost before they begin. — Tom Storm

This accords with my experience of tilting at windmills. It never turned out well. And, I've never read your pithy sentence before, as far as I can recall.

Hallmark sentiments are positive sounding non-inferential statements which are quite harmless as long as we don't take them seriously. I suppose graduation speakers and teachers trying to inspire their students do well to invoke platitudes. It would be bad form for the speaker to say to the 2024 graduating class that "you are lucky to be graduating at all!" or "You people are going to need every bit of underserved good luck you can get!"

The children leaving posh academies and graduating from elite institutions don't really need commencement platitudes. They, privileged bastards born with golden spoons in their mouths, know things will turn out well for them under almost all circumstances.

Which brings me to agreeing how nice is Balzac's "Behind every great fortune, there is a great crime". Only I think it much more true than not. I also like Pierre-Joseph Proudon's formulation, "All property is theft." Is my 100 year old 800 square ft. house on a narrow lot theft? I rented apartments until I was over 50, so I had many years to enjoy the Proudhon without feeling guilty. Was Pierre-Joseph talking about "capital property" or personal property? I don't know. Personal property which greatly exceeds need qualifies as theft, IMHO. A small family does not need a vast McMansion on 5 acres of farm land planted in high maintenance Kentucky blue grass (popular lawn grass) and other landscaping cliches. Don't forget the 4 car garage.

How about "Workers of the world Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" Is that true? I used to think it was unquestionably and obviously true, but I am less certain that we have nothing to lose but our chains, however chains are defined. And workers of all lands uniting seems quite far-fetched indeed, these days.

A watched pot never boils.

Not true. I have personally watched a pot of cold water put over a fire come to a boil.

What is true is that watching a pot of cold water heat up and boil is not very interesting.

I cannot be a nuclear power plant, for instance. — Tom Storm

This is true.

But I maintain that even a rich and smart person can not not be anything he wants to be. He may be rich; he may be smart. But he can't be the world's greatest lover if he is as sexy as a cold wet dish rag. He might be able to become a saint if he gave up all his wealth. Brains would be helpful, as would not being too sexy for his sandals and shabby clothes. Saint Augustine had to pray to God Almighty for chastity, "just not yet!"

There doesn't seem to be a big trend for rich smart people opting for the sorts of lifestyles that lead to eventual sainthood.

Are there any that are never true? — Tom Storm

Like, "The check is in the mail"?

No, that doesn't work because sometimes the check actually is in the mail.

How about "the United States is a democracy"? We have and have had a one-party state controlled by an oligarchy since the get-go. That the Republicans and Democrats are different parties is true every now and then, but mostly it's not true.

"Any American can be President." I would say this is obviously not true, but then there is Trump.

"Peace-loving nation"? Obviously a false platitude no matter which nation one is describing.

"You can be whatever you want to be." False, in ever so many ways.

they gave up horizontal social organization for a vertical one — Vera Mont

We weren't around, so what you and I say about them is a guess. My guess is that they didn't EXCHANGE horizontal organization for a vertical one. Verticality was imposed upon them. We can go one step back, as some writers have, like James C. Scott in "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" and suggest that grain was the bait and exploitation of the farmers by the 'elite' was the trap.

Even so, people have maintained horizontal organization at various levels, because it is just plain necessary for the survival of th species.

Sure, so did lots of reformers in lots of countries since then.
But it takes years to make the improvements, and when the other kind of administration comes to power, which it always does, it takes them hardly any time at all to tear it all down again. Ultimately, the wealth and power never stays with the people. — Vera Mont

I can't decide whether you are profoundly pessimistic or deeply realistic.

Perhaps we can say that wealth and power doesn't begin with "the people" in the first place. (and who do we count as "the people" and who are the evil "them"?) What "the people" -- the peasants, the laborers achieve is "enough" plus a little extra. Wealth and power are the province of the accumulators, the far-sighted exploiters, the "creative class" who figure out how to wring that "little extra from "the people" and keep it for themselves.

The peasants aren't free of the stain of cupidity. They too desire to accumulate, and as reported in the Medieval magazine Successful Peasant, some became quite comfortable and moved up quite a few notches in the social order. Most peasants don't end up in the pages of Successful Peasant because making minimal ends meet takes all the time, energy, and heart they have.

Exploitation (to create capital) is probably a necessary step to material progress. Yes, material progress doesn't benefit everyone -- at least, often, not for a long time.

Hello everyone!
This is my first post on this forum and I would like to debate about the hypothetical end of humanity and what would be possible scenarios that could happen. — Ege

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Putting our present in the widest possible context...

All life will be extinguished on this planet when the sun becomes a white dwarf billions of years from now.

Even IF there were no future threats to our species, we would still evolve and cease to exist as we now do. Into what we might evolve is beyond guessing

In the billions of years since life began on earth there have been five catastrophic extinctions that human beings had nothing to do with. A sixth extinction is in progress, and there will be more in the future, whether we cause them or not.

Hamlet calls humans "the paragon of animals". Shakespeare was as aware as we are how flawed our species is, but sure: in some ways we are paragons, but we are also deeply flawed in our inability to regularly and effectively act in the present to avoid somewhat distant or uncertain harms. What might be clear vision is clouded by emotions, misinformation, missing information, aspirations, hopes, greed, fear, wishful thinking, etc. Even love clouds our vision.

Actually, we are doing fairly well with global warming. Billions of flawed people recognize it and worry about it. Every day millions of individual minute actions are directed toward reducing waste. It is our misfortune that the problem of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere has reached high enough levels that we can't undo the damage by small actions. 99.9% of the world's population are not in a position to enact very big changes, and the 1/10th of 1% that could are greedy bastards, for the most part, that can't let go of opportunities to get even richer.

Will something happen that will persuade even the oil magnates around the globe--the auto manufacturers; the developers and builders; the big food companies, the manufacturers and retailers, etc. to stop driving us ever deeper into crisis? And what would that "something" be?

In any event, this species (us) will in all likelihood survive, barring some added disaster (like nuclear war, a big rock from space...) happening. We might be significantly reduced, we might be living a primitive life style, but we'd still be around.

but now a lot like that is restricted — Mark Nyquist

Perhaps 'the authorities' have no choice but to restrict access to places that used to be open to the public. Or perhaps they did have options, and chose restriction, just because. The U of Minnesota used to be wide open--libraries, classroom buildings, clinics, etc. Now there are guards and locks at many entrances. I suppose a higher level of social disorder since the pandemic might be a factor; so more thievery, assaults, OD's in the restrooms...

I can't remember how one transfers from the blue to the red line. It's been many years since I was in Boston. Did you, by any chance, drive through the route of "the big dig" or across the stay bridge?

In the original trolley car problem context, it was fetus vs mother. By some definitions (not mine) a fetus is a 'person', so abortion for some people IS this life for that life.

In disaster triage, decisions are made about letting some die (who, under the specific circumstances can't be helped) so that other people who probably can benefit will be treated.

It is probably more productive to discuss actual moral dilemmas. One problem with the 'trolley problem' is that actor on the bridge doesn't have a stake in the outcome. A pregnant woman does have a stake in the outcome--her body will experience the abortion; her fetus will be destroyed; her partner may or may not approve. Further, the 5 and the 1 on the track are as good as stick figures.

What-if the subject to be shoved off the bridge wasn't the disposable fat man, for whom nobody has all that much sympathy anyway, but a gorgeous woman? BTW, there was no 'fat man' in the original 1967 problem posed by Philippa Foot in the context of abortion ethics.

In 2017, a group led by Michael Stevens performed the first realistic trolley-problem experiment, where subjects were placed alone in what they thought was a train-switching station, and shown footage that they thought was real (but was actually prerecorded) of a train going down a track, with five workers on the main track, and one on the secondary track; the participants had the option to pull the lever to divert the train toward the secondary track. Most of the participants did not pull the lever

The subjects must have been very naive indeed to think the "train switching station" or the pre-recorded footage was real.

Take away: just stay away from mass transit.

Are we sure this is a real story?

I still feel my life is being squandered — hypericin

As William Wordsworth said in his poem, The World Is Too Much With Us, "getting and spending, we lay waste our powers..." in so many ways.

45" to an hour each way on transit from house to office is par for the course, and for carless people with young children, it gets much more complicated.

It makes total sense to me that workers who were told to work from home don't want to go back to their former offices. It isn't the office -- it's the commute.

Many Americans could drive less. I don't really expect people to walk 2 miles to a supermarket and then carry 30 pounds of groceries back home. They could bike, but biking requires a reasonably safe street, and there are a lot of places in the suburbs which are hard to get to while remaining safe on the street.

Many people do, however, live reasonably close to drugstores and supermarkets, and could get there on foot or bike with little risk. It is more work, sure. But the labor of shopping and schlepping one's stuff home saves a trip to the gym.

Internal Combustion Engine. I didn't get it either.

Lots of transit riders have stood or sat for several lifetimes waiting for a bus to arrive. The traffic whizzes by, 1 person per car mostly, maybe 2. Maybe a dog rides along. Time after time. We begin to wonder, "Why does the community in which I live and contribute value my time so little?" It has spent millions of dollars making sure drivers have a good road. A little money, a million here, a million there -- it never seems to add up to real money -- is spent on buses.

Here am I, on a Sunday afternoon, traveling 10 miles to downtown and my favorite gay bar. It took me 10 minutes to get to the bus stop, and the bus I was aiming for zoomed past when I was 1/2 block away. It will be 30 minutes before the next bus arrives -- and this won't get me downtown, It will get me to a transfer point where I will have to wait for another bus to finish the trip. Between 60 and 90 minutes later, I arrive.

The trip back is going to take just as long, because evening buses are less frequent and the whole service ends about the same time the bars close.

On Monday morning, there are more buses, certainly, but it still takes 10 minutes to get to the bus stop. The bus will probably be crowded and many people will be standing as the bus lurches this way and that. Still a transfer to be made. Another crowded bus, moving slowly down the street -- average speed is about what a bicycle can do, or less.

I also have always had poor vision and have never been a driver. Yes. this is outside the 'normal' American experience where car ownership and the 'freedom of the road' has been an essential -- obligatory -- part of experience. In much of this very large country, not driving is a decided disadvantage.

It's amazing how often people will drive to store that is 1/2 mile away to get a small bag of groceries--this is the city where there are wide sidewalks everywhere, no prowling wolf packs, only 1.3 gun-toting criminals per mile, and nice wether during much of the year.

I'm not sure how long studded bike tires have been around--probably not too long. You can get them with more or fewer studs; more is decidedly better. I've used them when the streets had a lot of packed snow/ice, and felt pretty secure from having the bike slide sideways out from under me.

One drawback is that they are fairly expensive, but they're good for at least several seasons.

One of the things that dissuades me that light rail is the all-purpose cure is the cost / benefit. The Green Line extension into western Hennepin County from downtown Minneapolis (a 10 +/- mile line) has risen to $3 billion and it has taken years to not being finished yet. Its stations can not be close to nearly enough people to produce decent ridership levels.

Mass transit in suburban areas is up against the low density that those cities were predicated on. True, fixed rail systems could be built out like so many branching arteries and capillaries. Better, it seems to me, IF we were going to force suburbanites to use transit (possibly by pointing a gun at their heads and ordering them to ride) would be many small electric buses that could use the already installed concrete and asphalt roads. These could be both on-demand or on-schedule.

As practical as a light rail network to every cul de sac in America would be to compress the suburbs into denser communities. Expropriate the properties, recycle the McMansions, tear up the excessive mileage of roads, and replace it with dense housing closer to the core. Return the once fertile suburban land to trees or turnip fields.

This draconian solution might be beyond even the Chinese Communist Party's enforcement apparatus, however.

I did bike a few times in freezing weather and wouldn't recommend it. Ice patches and it's very hard to regulate your body temperature so if you stop biking you will be wet and freeze — Mark Nyquist

The cure for ice is studded tires. I bought a pair several years ago and they really help. BUT studded tires do nothing for snow that is more than a couple inches deep. This has been a good year for winter bike riding. Not a normal winter.

I used to run all year round and liked running in the cold. But true enough, if you are sweating, you have to keep moving. The trick for winter riding or running (say, for an hour) is to not dress too warmly and suck up a certain amount of discomfort. You'll feel so virtuous!

I haven't ridden the Grand Rounds since... the 1980s? For a while in 92 I was training for 2 century rides (100 miles) and did maybe 50 or 60 miles 3 times a week, riding east into Washington County. The first century was Minneapolis, down highway 52 to Fountain. Rest break for a couple of days. Then Fountain to LaCrosse and up the trail to Trempeleau, about another 100. Next day, Trempeleau to Red Wing, maybe 80. Next day, a very hard ride from Red Wing to St. Paul, 60 miles, by which time every turn of the wheel got harder and harder. The August weather was great. I wouldn't think of riding out of town on 52 now; it'd feel too suicidal, with the heavier traffic.

Minneapolis is a pretty good place to bike around, as long as one stays off heavy traffic streets, with dedicated bicycle lanes or not. 28th St. has a well marked bike lane, but there is just too much traffic on the one way, and the Greenway runs parallel with it 1 block away.

I'm getting too old (77) for long rides, so mostly I just bike to the store and back.

So that's at least two of us in MN. I live in the Longfellow neighborhood of Minneapolis.

You mentioned Boston's transit. I've seen a number of Youtube videos critical of the MBTA -- primarily long-deferred maintenance. Design is itself a problem -- the oldest parts of the system were built about 124 years ago. Corners are tighter than would now be designed, less space was allocated. Old and newer elements within the MBTA are sometimes not quite compatible.

I lived in Boston in 1968/9, and I thought the subway, elevated trains, and buses were just wonderful.

Here's a pretty good Youtube video about the problems of the MBTA.

Based on my experience of growing up in a rural county, I'd say there is no practical way of providing regular transit service. On-demand rides could certainly be done -- I think are done in some rural areas on a limited basis. There is a real need, though. Many people in rural areas are elderly and would prefer to have a practical option to driving themselves everywhere.

Example of rural transit: The Mayo Clinic is located in Rochester, MN - a town of 121,000 people. It employs a large number of people from at least 3 surrounding counties. In order to cut down on traffic and parking costs, and to keep from annoying citizens more than they already do, Mayo organized a transit system for its employees, collecting 1 or two bus loads of people each in small towns up to 50 miles out, and dropping them off at the buildings in which they work. In the evening the routes are traveled in the opposite direction. Several thousand workers get to work this way.

There used to be intercity or interstate bus service in some of these towns, but that died out decades ago.

I don't - never did - drive, so P and R services are outside my ken. I don't know what level of utilization they have / had or whether they fulfilled their purpose. The commuter rail systems are a sort of park and ride -- in the AM you drive to the station, park (or are dropped off), and get on a heavy rail train into town, and do the reverse in the PM.

@Schopenhauer1 During the pandemic (now running into its 4th year) offices were closed and employees in offices were given the means to work from / at home, The numbers of people not needing transit or a car trip downtown was big enough to produce a crisis in the office real estate market. Many billions of dollars worth of office space across the country are empty. This reveals two things:

First, technology makes it possible for many people to work at home. Good? Bad? It depends. It depends. In a cartoon from 2020, two cats ask, "When are they going to leave?" and "Why don't they just go outside and die." Initially many people didn't like it; now, as their employers are dithering over office rent, most don't want to go back to the daily commute.

Secondly, changing one thing (hundreds of thousands of office workers at home) can have adverse effects elsewhere in the economy. Work from home (wfh) was a boon to communication businesses. Think Zoom. At the same time wfh was a disaster for transit -- millions of fares foregone,

Central business district support businesses were devastated. Cafes, caterers, small stores, etc. tanked all over the place. The usual unlovely elements moved in to fill the vacuum created by absent office workers.

City planners aren't sure whether their downtowns will find ways to become even moderately interesting please to be. Convert the office to towers to apartments? This is only sometimes economically feasible. Buildings with narrow floor plates can convert offices to living spaces, though it is expensive to add plumbing for baths and kitchens and HVAC for individual units. Large square or wide rectangular office buildings (the most common kind) have too large a floor plate. Apartments arranged along the outside edge, where the windows are, leaves a large cavity in the center of each floor that just isn't usable for much. Air shaft? Atrium? Again, generally not economically feasible.

How many people living downtown add up to an interesting city? I don't know, but a lot more than who are presently living there. I'd say... let's say... could be... 25,000 residents downtown could make for an interesting city that didn't depend on office workers.

Minneapolis has about 50,000 people living in a very generously defined downtown. These 50,000 are not a dense enough concentration for the amount of area they live in. 400,000 people live in Minneapolis, and they don't make downtown an interesting place, because most of them never drive -- never drove -- downtown,

Why did they not drive downtown? Because there are scary unpleasant things downtown, like one way streets, parking meters, the dreaded cultural diversity, no enclosed shopping centers, parking lots charging money to enter, busses all over, too many stop lights... It's a nightmare!

I actually use park and ride in big cities to keep my car from being vandalized. — Mark Nyquist

That's a benefit, not the primary purpose -- one hopes. Park & Ride seems to be aimed at lessening congestion on inbound/outbound roads, and having to use expensive parking downtown. P & R is also a way of creating ridership.

At other times mass transit must be available for the small volume of people who want to use it, and it must still be frequent enough to meet people's needs — Agree-to-Disagree

why at any given day of the week and at any given time, there are so many people "not at the workplace", but going to shops, restaurants, the beach, and somewhere else. — L'éléphant

The fact of the matter is that a large share of "mass transit" is largely transit for the poor and the disabled who have little choice but to use "shabby transit". Because the constituency using transit tends to be poor people, students, or people who can't/don't drive, frequency, comfort, quality, convenience, etc. just isn't a priority.

IF the kind of anti-social, dysfunctional, disorderly, and disruptive behavior that swept over transit during the pandemic occurred in a wealthy suburb's shopping area, there would have been an immediate crackdown on riff raff. On many transit systems, this crap continued for 3 years before transit authorities got serious about bad behavior on their systems.

Did I miss the punchline to this lame joke?