And surely, the economy is almost at 20k, an all-time high. — Question

The Dow Jones Industrial Average may be almost at 20k, but the DJIA is not the same as the economy. Stock markets are speculative, and there is a somewhat tenuous relationship between the various stock averages and the actual financial/industrial activity in a country. The reason the DJIAI is still close to its high of 19,987.63 is that speculation keeps it there. Speculators are more confident in stock when the economy is at least reported to be doing OK.

The economy (actual production, consumption, profitability, rates of return on investment, employment, debt, etc.) and the DJIA or the S&P 500 are not chained together. Thousands of corporate reports showing actual financial results reveal how the economy is doing (that and Bureau of Labor Statistics, et al). There is a relationship between the actual economy and stock market, but there isn't a one-for-one relationship.

I'm not sure if you've gotten the point of this topic; but, climate change up to a certain point is actually beneficial to the economy and the world. If the smart scientists are right that a small increment in temperature will lead to a runaway effect, then we will walk over that bridge when the time comes (60-100 years from now). — Question

Of course I get the point -- I'm an urban sophisticate, just like you.

We can look at the Medieval Warm Period and the "Little Ice Age" that followed it. People were much better off physically and economically during the Medieval Warm Period than they were during the cooler "Little Ice Age." Here it is, all graphed out:



But bear in mind: Global warming didn't begin in the 1990s. It's been progressing for something like 2 centuries.

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15º C because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5ºC temperature rise. He and Thomas Chamberlin calculated that human activities could warm the earth by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This research was a by-product of research of whether carbon dioxide would explain the causes of the great Ice Ages. This was not actually verified until 1987.

The warming that has happened in the last two centuries is considerably greater than the warming during the Medieval period, and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise. We passed the arbitrary 400 ppm in the last year. The warmer it gets, the more water vapor and CO2 there will be -- guaranteed by the laws of physics and chemistry. Add methane to the mix. The more water vapor, CO2 and methane, the faster the feedback loop.

We may, might, possibly, probably are, or could be past the point of beneficial warming. I've been around long enough (70 years) to see some warmth related changes. When I was in high school (before 1964) iris, peonies, lilacs, and bridal wreath peak blossomed for Decoration Day (aka Memorial Day). For the past 10 years, at least, these plants have been fished blossoming before Memorial Day. Migratory birds are returning 2-3 weeks earlier, and some birds have decided to skip migrating -- this in Minnesota. Insects that used to be killed off in the winter (ones that infest trees, particularly) are now surviving winter. It isn't that winter has disappeared across the northern tier of states. It is just that very cold periods are much shorter than they used to be with spring arriving earlier, and winter beginning a bit later. The last really long brutal cold spell in Minneapolis was the winter of 1983-1984 when the temperature in December '83 was near or below zero, with a low of -29ºF on Dec. 19.

I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices.
— Bitter Crank

This makes no sense to me. — m-theory

We have more control about the behavior we display than the emotions we feel.

You invite your girlfriend to dinner. She says she is busy. You ask her to suggest a better date. She says, "Never. I don't want to see you again. Don't call me anymore."

It would be surprising if you could dial up whatever emotional reaction you thought was appropriate at that moment.

You ask your daughter to clean up her room. She turns to you and says, "Fuck you, creep." (Or whatever it is that daughters say these days.) This response is unexpected. You have 100% control over how you feel at that point?

The boss calls you in and tells you the company doesn't want you anymore. "Give me your keys and I'll escort you to the front door. Your belongings will be sent to you." No uncontrolled emotional reaction?

Maybe I am projecting. I have, in the past, been in situations where people got through whatever shields I maintained and "it got to me" and I reacted without selecting the best response. For the last few years I have been much more "in control" in that I have been much less reactive. But then, I have been going out of my way to avoid situations where I might run into static. But still, quite pleasant interactions happen and I can't seem to help respond positively.

It would be my fault for being upset, I am responsible for my own emotions. — m-theory

I don't buy this theory that we are so encapsulated that how we respond to other people's actions is purely a matter of our own choices. Because we are social animals, the signals we receive from other people do affect us--beyond the way we wish to respond.

Granted, we can prepare ourselves for a difficult interaction, and if properly prepared we can defend ourselves. But often verbal/non-verbal social assaults come out of left field, or are so consistent that we eventually lose our ability to ignore them.

We are, at least to some extent, responsible for the consequences of our behavior on other people.

...we have to come to terms with several impossibilities: — Agustino

(1) The impossibility of globalisation — Agustino

In one sense, globalization has already happened. Communication, trade, and travel have greatly diminished the sense of 'separateness' that people experienced say, a century ago, and further back. Whether economic integration would be a good thing or not, I just don't know. For the winners it would be fine, of course. Everybody else, not so much.

(2) The impossibility of a unified multicultural society — Agustino

Is it impossible? The US has been multicultural for what, 150 years, give or take a few. Each new intensification of multiculturalism tends to cause the established culture to recoil, but in time the newcomers become part of the established culture. Maybe 2 or 3 generations. The Western Hemisphere was repopulated over the last 500 years. There were decidedly winners and losers in this process, but multiculturalism was the result.

Still, multiculturalism isn't an entirely settled issue.

(3) The impossibility of an economic system based on and fueled by the idea of infinite growth — Agustino

Total agreement here. Clearly enough, economic growth has limits because the foundation of any economy -- conveniently accessible minerals and fertile soils -- is limited. The huge deposits of iron, copper, tin, coal, and so on turned out to be a lot less than infinite. (High quality sand for concrete is finite too, and even that is becoming scarcer.) Same goes for fertile soils.

(4) The impossibility of sustaining social order in a society driven by consumerism — Agustino

Clearly, "consumption" is insufficient to justify anyone's existence, and that is a major problem already recognized back in the 1950s and 1960s. (I think it was) Edgar Friedenberg who noted that one of the functions of the American education system was to regulate the labor pool of the young, and keep young people in the role of "consumption" and out of "production" for as long as possible -- maybe past the PhD.)

The counterculture of the 1950s (beatniks) and 1960s (hippies and all) was anti-consumerism. "Turn on, tune in, drop out" was Timothy Leary's idea. Lame brained as it was, it was also anti-consumerism (except for the production and consumption of Lysergic acid diethylamide).

I've been talking with a friend and essentially the argument goes that limiting growth today (sacrificing GDP) instead of saving it at a higher discount rate over, say 60-100 years when the discount rate will lead to a significantly higher return on saved money, then most of these prognostications will come to fruition is better than sacrificing current GDP growth and then tackling the problem of climate change in the future. — Question

Your friend has zero reasons to be confident in his economic predictions for 60-100 years hence. I know nothing about your friend; he might be a genius, but he still doesn't know what is going to happen economically in 100 years. Nobody else does either. I personally would not bank on such advice.

Go back to 1917 and ask yourself, what predictions in 1917 bearing directly on the economy have proved true in the intervening century? Nobody predicted the great depression, World War II (or any subsequent war); nobody predicted the immense importance of radio or automobiles or TV to the economy; nobody anticipated the manned landing on the moon or the absurdly expensive and wasteful Star Wars initiative of the Reagan Administration; nobody predicted antibiotics, the elimination of smallpox or polio, the 1918 worldwide influenza epidemic (only 1 year later) that killed between 20 and 40 million people in about a year. Nobody predicted AIDS, Ebola, or Zika either.

The human ecology and human economy is far more complicated than global weather. The range of predictions about global warming or climate change, whatever term you like better, is based on comparatively straightforward climate models which are based on physics, chemistry, and accumulated data. It's much easier to confidently predict what will happen to climate over 50 years with a doubling of CO2 methane in the atmosphere than it is to say what GDP will be 25 years from now.

You know, the Great Recession of 2008 was not predicted 15 minutes before it began.

Another point worth mentioning is if coal and natural gas, which are the cheapest available sources of power are abundant, then we ought to utilize them to achieve the maximum amount of growth possible. Then, when the resources run out or there are other cheaper options, then move onto utilizing those options. — Question

Have you learned nothing about the real world?

Look, at the time of the carboniferous epoch (359.2 to 299 million years ago) the world was very warm and humid and had high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ancient forests, and animal life of the swampy world died, were buried, and locked up a lot of the excess CO2. It became coal, oil, and gas.

250 years ago we all started digging up all this sequestered carbon and burned it for various purposes. We've dug up a good share of the coal, sucked up even more of the oil, and have tapped a lot of the natural gas. All of the carbon we dug up and burned became the CO2 that is causing the planet to rapidly warm up. That's what CO2 does.

A lousy 2ºC is no crisis you say. It is, because the amount of CO2 that it takes to warm up the earth that much will be very hard to remove. As we continue to add CO2, even at an decreased rate, the climate will continue to warm. At 2ºC increase, serious climate and weather problems start to ensue.

Why? Physics and chemistry again. Put a lot more energy into the atmosphere and the result will be more extreme weather, more erratic weather, and worse.

So, Question, we can be much more sure of negative climate developments than we can of beneficial economic developments.

Worse. Philosophers have more fire power in their armories to defend their entrenched positions. Not only that, they are entrenched about opinions that are 2500 years old. None the less, these dry, dusty issues are grabbed onto by the goats as if they were just cut and harvested yesterday.

China is still building coal fired plants, however, and even in a command economy reasonably safe nuclear plants take quite a while to bring on line.

Carbon emissions are becoming less intense (x amount of carbon per y share of GDP), but it is still increasing and according to Chinese sources will continue to increase for a period of time because China is still in it's planned process of industrializing and urbanizing -- both of which involve increases in carbon output. (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/making-sense-of-china-s-drop-in-coal-use/)

Granted, they are building more nuclear and solar plants, but in such a huge economy still being transformed, "Peak carbon" has probably not been reached yet. And the year after peak carbon doesn't mean no carbon, it just means a bit less carbon. That applies to the rest of the world's economies too. And don't forget India which will be an increasingly massive producer of carbon from various processes.

The US remains #2 after China in world carbon output.

Global warming won't result in evenly distributed consequences, beneficial or not. For instance, the earth's polar regions are -- and will continue to warm -- more rapidly than equatorial regions. So, what's the problem with that?

Melted polar ice will raise ocean levels enough to obliterate most of the world's coastal cities and lands, where the largest concentrations of people live. This won't happen overnight, but it also won't be avoided overnight, either. Fisheries and farm land will also be disrupted (most fish are hatched along shorelines).

Continental regions will not experience global warming evenly, either. The American southwest region is expected to experience deepening drought and excessive heat. The north mid-lands will experience not just more rain, but more rain in more frequent heavy rainfall. So, what's the problem with that?

A lot of people live in the SW, and as it becomes hotter and drier, their continued residence there will become increasingly unsustainable. They will have to resettle at great cost. As for the northern plains states, the source of a huge share of the nation's and world's food, they tend to be flat. A 10 inch rainfall on top of higher average rainfalls generally means flooding (which is bad of course) but it also means a drop in crop yields as flat fields stay under water for too long a period. A drowned corn, wheat, bean, sunflower, etc. crop in July means no crop at all. Even with a longer growing period, midsummer crop loss means no crop that year.

The glaciers in Asia are melting. The ice will be gone sometime in this century. Yes, there will be heavier -- and more unpredictable -- monsoons. A 20 inch rain would seem to solve the problem of glacier loss, but it doesn't. A sudden heavy rain (say, 10-20 inches) is too much to deal with. The soils can not begin to absorb that much rain, and it runs off causing severe flooding.

As one approaches the equator (even as close as the southern US) excess heat will make it increasingly difficult to spend the usual amount of time outdoors during the summer months required to run agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure repair, roofing, and so on. This will most likely be a late 21st century problem, but that's only 60 years away.

So yes: there will be benefits. One will be able to ship goods through the arctic ocean between Europe and Asia. The downside of a warm arctic is more methane in the atmosphere as the tundra melts and starts rotting, and releasing methane hydrates. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

A warm Arctic might also mean a disruption of surface and deep ocean currents. So who cares? If the gulf stream is disrupted, Europe will get a lot colder. (It won't warm up enough to eliminate winter.) A much colder, and maybe drier Europe, will not be pleasant.

I think there are several things at work:

1. As people watch the debate, they rehearse arguments to themselves that support their previously held opinions.

2. When people discuss debates with others who agree with them, this reinforces previously held views.

3. People seek out confirmation of their opinions (biases). After watching a Clinton/Trump debate, for instance, I would turn to my preferred media (like the NYT, In These Times, The Nation, etc.) for confirming opinion. I would not go to Fox News or some conservative internet site for debate analysis.

4. It isn't only the actual opinions that people hear that affect their opinions. Tone of voice, dress, facial expression, stage setting, audience reaction, and so on also affect how people respond to debates. For example, Clinton's voice became raspier (in my opinion) as the campaign progressed--most likely an effect of too much "yelling" for lack of a better word, leading to vocal chord irritation. Sanders voice, by comparison, was much less stressed. Ditto for Trump. I found Trump's face very unattractive. I liked Rubio's face the most of any candidate, but didn't and never would have voted for him. Bill Clinton's voice also became pretty stressed during his campaign in the 1990s.

Can debate entrench people in their views? — Jeremiah

Yes. There has been research that debates reinforce beliefs already held and do not dramatically change opinion.

An example:

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/elections/presidential-debates-effects-research-roundup

“On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates”
Cho, Jaeho; Ha, Yerheen Ha. Political Communication, 2012, Vol. 29, No. 2, 184-204. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2012.671233.

Abstract: “Previous research on presidential debates has largely focused on direct effects of debates on viewers. By expanding the context of debate effects to post-debate citizen communication, this study moves beyond the direct and immediate impact of debate viewing and investigates indirect effects of debate viewing mediated by debate-induced citizen communication. Results from two-wave panel data collected before and after the 2004 presidential debates show that, as previous literature has suggested, debate viewing leads to partisan reinforcement and that these debate effects are in part mediated through post-debate political conversation. These findings provide a new layer of complexity to our understanding of the mechanisms underlying debate effects.”

OK, I'll drop the claim about UUs. I'll also back off my assertion about ethical societies, since my actual experience with them is pretty limited. Maybe there are religious groups sans supernatural, maybe not.

But I'll hold onto this: Whether an attendee of explicitly religious or explicitly secular organizations, what people actually believe does vary. There are people who attend religious services who don't, in fact, believe in supernatural stuff. There are very secular atheists who hold onto some supernaturalistic ideas. Why? Because people just aren't 100% consistent in what they think, or 100% consistent between what they do and think. People waffle, slip and slide, and sneak in the back door of all sorts of things, including belief and disbelief.

Under the best of circumstances, we are not entirely rational beings. What we rationally think doesn't strictly govern what we feel, and what we feel can alter what we think -- round and round we go.

What is it about them that makes you consider them to be religions?

I've been impressed by Alain De Botton. He's written Religion for Atheists, but the gist of his book is that religions have great qualities (like traditions that remind us what is important), he just rejects the idea that God exists. — anonymous66

I consider them "religious" because they seem to think they are practicing a religion. I attended socialist meetings for a long time, which had a similar feel to them, but we explicitly did not think we were practicing a religion. We thought we were practicing politics. Maybe we were mostly whistling dixie, but that's another story.

I like this: "religions have great qualities (like traditions that remind us what is important)".

Religion provides useful services that are not provided by secular society -- not just in the present era, but in past times as well. Society is usually composed of competing interests, some of which--if unchallenged--have the capacity to totally degrade society. Nazi Germany is a prime example. Catholic and Protestant organizations in Germany by and large failed to challenge Nazi ideology early on, when a vigorous challenge might have had more consequence.

Religion, of course, can have deleterious effects on society too. Fundamentalist Christianity is a prime example. So also is the equivalent strains in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, or any other religion. In these cases, it is secularists who must do the challenging.

Why do we use just one word for love? Well, that's just English for you. There are many other words and phrases in English that describe nuanced understandings of love. The precise meaning that is intended for "love" has to be judged by context. The difference between "I love popcorn" and "I love my dog" is pretty clear. The difference between "I love my dog" and "I love my wife" might not be all that clear cut, given the possible state of relationships between people. Partners sometimes wonder where they stand Vis-à-vis the dog.

Emotions are generally a mix. There are a variety of kinds of love, and we feel more than one at a time. We mix other feelings with love, too. That's just the nature of the beast (i.e., us).

I - and others - have mentioned them. They are

Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē means "love: esp. charity; the love of God for man and of man for God. unconditional love. This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."

Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion."

Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals."

Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children" It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring.

There are other Greek words for love and affection, and there are other (modern) interpretations of these types of love. Naturally, there is a good deal more to say about the ancient Greek meaning of these words. Search Wikipedia.

Shouldn't we be discussing that Pussy IS Really a Source for Meaningful Life and Optimism? Sorry... I meant "relationships"? — intrapersona

What you are experiencing in this pointless discussion is what passes for pussy (errr, meaningful relationships) among philosophers. Actual pussy is not interested in this kind of intellectual pusillanimous pussyfooting.

You measure your height WITH YOUR MIND — intrapersona

How, exactly, does "your mind" measure anything all by itself?

You're concentrating on the people. I'm talking about the institution and/or belief system. — anonymous66

There are no disembodied institutions or belief systems apart from people. No matter the institution or the belief system, it is always peopled (or it is dead).

Can you give an example of a religion (not people who claim to be followers) that doesn't include supernatural beliefs? — anonymous66

I was thinking of some very small groups like 'ethical societies', secular humanist organizations, some unitarian groups that are just about free of supernaturalism, and the like.

Well, there are these r u m o r s of polygamy, child rape and organized crime (Mormons tied in with the Mafia -- Italians and Mormons??? -- very odd) but Mormon is a religion of Peace, so they just couldn't be doing all these horrible things.

Mormon Satires:

Rosalie Sorrels, 1961


Mormon satirical song based on Adele's Hello

Happy New Year to all.

We might as well.

Joseph Smith — lambda

Have the Mormons been blowing things up lately? Unless you consider Mormon missionaries terrorists, they don't seem to be appropriately grouped with Jihadists.

Thanks for the clarification. I hang around Lutherans, but was raised a Methodist -- they think it strictly symbolic. Pretty much, anyway. But I could be wrong.

Most religions require belief in the central supernatural elements. For instance, mono- and poly-theistic religions require belief in god(s). Must one believe in transubstantiation (bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ)? Some? many? believers downgrade transubstantiation to a symbolic transformation. (Among Catholics and Lutherans, the Eucharist isn't considered symbolic. Lutherans, however, limit the transformation to the celebration of the Eucharistic meal. left over bread and wine revert to their original nature.)

I'm not clear about Buddhism. Anybody?

The so-called humanistic, ethical "religious" "movements" like secular humanism avoid any supernaturalism.

All that aside, it is the case that what believers actually hold to be true about the supernatural varies a great deal. For instance, not all Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead. Not all Catholics and Lutherans believe in transubstantiation. Not all Christians believe in miracles. Not all Jews believe in God.

How can this be?

Membership in the believing group, identity with the believing group, loyalty, abiding interest, etc. are also features of religion, as well as supernatural elements. Some people identify religion as "a good thing" even though they don't really believe any of it. And they don't show up on Sunday (maybe Christmas Eve, though).

There are priests, pastors, preachers who don't really believe what they are saying. This, however, is likely to lead to intense cognitive dissonance and usually would result in the priest, pastor, preacher departing--either on his own or with assistance.

Some people are outliers, doubters, disbelievers, skeptics, about a lot. They don't believe in various planks in the religious platform, aren't loyal to their country, don't believe in the law most of the time, doubt the honesty of all politicians no matter what, don't really believe their helping-profession job actually does any real good, don't really believe in the sanctity of the marriage they are in, aren't good soldiers, are likely to steal from the till if they get a chance, and so on.

Then there are true believers who are faithful down to the last comma and dotted i--and people in between the two extremes.

That's just life.

Is "lol" a subjective fact or an objective truth, and how would one tell the difference?

The statement "All truths are subjective" does not correspond to any objective fact. — m-theory

Yes it does. — Terrapin Station

I get what you are saying.
You are saying that the term "truth" and the term "subjective" mean the same thing, but that is not an objective fact — m-theory

No I'm not saying that truth and subjective are the same thing. <sigh>

It seems like you're not really interested in trying to understand what it is that I'm saying. Either that or it's extremely difficult for you to understand. — Terrapin Station

And this, boys and girls, is an example of a meaningful life relationship for philosophers. Were they not separated by the chasm of cyberspace, they would, about now, be ready to fall into each other's arms.

He didn't say it per se, a character in a book he wrote did. The reason being that other people make us self-conscious, make us view ourselves as an object from the outside. — Wosret

The story is "No Exit" and the passage is:

“All those glances that I eat … Ha, you’re only two? I thought you were much more numerous. So that’s hell. … I never thought You remember: the sulfur, the stake, the grill .. Oh What a joke. No need to grill: hell is other people”.

Hell is other people. - Sartre — darthbarracuda

Is J. P. the devil?

There is much more ritual in religion than in philosophy.
Singing is far more common in religion than in philosophy.
Religion is far less 'open ended' than philosophy
Religion more readily judges the meaning of behavior than philosophy
Passion is probably more common in religion than in philosophy, but that depends on the topic and the debaters.
Religion is more of a going concern than philosophy -- more assets, more adherents, more employment, much better cash flow.
Professional theologians and philosophers share generally similar education levels.

Educated religion-shy western Europeans are currently religious outliers.

Are the Notions of God and Personal Immortality Emotional Security Blankets? — ThePhilosopherFromDixie

Perhaps, but what of it?

I just finished up IRON WIND, a book comparing French and Polish, Jewish and Catholic responses to the Nazi occupation of Europe. For the Jews viewing their own destruction as a people, and their impending individual deaths, the question of whether believing in God was some sort of "security blanket" was a critical question.

For some Jews, belief in God offered a way of sustaining their personal and collective identities in the face of certain annihilation. For others it was a burden, if they could not find a way to account for their faith and God's apparent abandonment of them. Many were, or became disbelievers. Some recognized their faith as some sort of "security blanket". In the end, they died at the hands of the Nazis, whatever they believed.

Most of us are able to contemplate the existence or non-existence of god as an academic question. But one thing applies to us that applied to the doomed Jews: Whatever we believe, we are going to die just the same. So, if belief in God offers comfort, to whom is that a problem? What are you (or anyone else) offering as an improvement?

Officially, I don't believe in the god that I grew up with. I've found ways of understanding god that I like better, but I don't find these overly convincing either. I'm 70; death isn't all that far away now. Hoping for more time on earth (which I definitely do) is a sort of security blanket, too. Of course the old security of life-eternal was comforting--assuming one was spending it in heaven and not hell. But I find it very difficult to believe in such a thing as this brief existence and then another, eternal existence. Belief in god has (for me) become a problem of cognitive dissonance, not a security blanket.

There are more pressing issues of faith that Iron Wind presents clearly: Why were French and Polish Catholics NOT more concerned about the fate of their neighbors, the Jews? What we do or don't do as people who have, or don't have, faith is far more important than how we feel about dying.

transcendent — Punshhh

Transcendent is a good word.

spiritual. — Punshhh

I liked your post except for that one word, spiritual. It has become a very "spongy" word, profoundly vague, indefinite, with no solid definition. I wish the word hadn't been debased by so much use to indicate something, but who knows what?

Maybe art does not have a direct evolutionary purpose but is a by product of creativity and inventiveness. — m-theory

Our predecessors spent a long time in the stone age without apparent innovation, invention, or creative product--at least as far as we can tell from the archeological record. Then around 40,000 - 25,000 years ago they emerged from a long static period--think Lascaux cave paintings, small carved figures, and more complex lithic tools.

I wouldn't myself argue that art has an evolutionary purpose -- we really don't have any way of knowing -- I'd argue for the by-product approach. Creativity wouldn't limit itself to tool making, hide scraping, meat cooking, or weaving; it would overflow into "pointless", expressive activity. Not without some more technology, of course. If a an advanced cave man is going to spread paint around on himself and the walls, he has to make it first--grind some stuff up, and mix it a bit, learn how to deploy it. If he's going to string some shells on a piece of fiber, he has to learn how to drill a little hole in the shell without wrecking it. And so on.

All that is required once we get to this point is enough time and safety to practice expression.

As time went on, all sorts of technology was created. For instance, someone, some modern group of people, figured out how to extract a very strong glue from birch bark, for instance. They used it to fasten points to shafts. Getting glue out of bark is a not-at-all-obvious process. Their method required innovation, experimentation, an understanding of several different materials, and the careful application of heat. From such technology can come more complex creative work.

This all goes to show that life is just a living nightmare.

First, change the names in one of the scenarios. It's confusing to have two situations with Bob and Alex. How about Lewis and Vladimir for one case, Bob and Alex for the other.

People make mistakes. Alex's is the primary mistake and it is his responsibility to pay for the cost of speeding (the increased insurance rate). Bob's mistake is secondary. He bears no blame for Alex's speeding. Bob isn't obligated to pay Alex for part of the twice-increased premium. On the other hand, maybe he shouldn't have agreed to cover Alex in the first place. Alex, drive more cautiously and pay the cost of speeding.

Bob, was there nowhere you could buy some oil and add it? Bob, cough up some money for the ruined engine.

Bob and Alex should stop doing business with each other.

I haven't seen the real thing, but what I posted is not a good representation of it, pretty sure.

I am very sorry. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you, but I meant to type "Van Gogh" not Pablo Picasso. Apparently I wished to impoverish Pablo. Van Gogh and Oscar Wilde both died broke. If this error resulted in losses, you may be eligible for financial compensation from somebody--maybe the owner of this website. Or maybe John D. Rockefeller, IV.

On the one hand, I wasn't aware that Picasso was rolling in cash; on the other hand, you may not be aware that Picasso did not paint starry nights.



Van Gogh

My guess is that all trees started out as bushes, and it became very crowded. Some clever tree decided to expand up, rather than out, and this worked out quite well for everybody concerned -- except the bushes, of course.

Well, I am a socialist, after all, but I picked up the term before I started thinking a lot about capitalism. Lot's of people have used the term "filthy lucre" over the years, and it's scriptural (in the King James Bible, anyway).

It is used in the King James Version of the Bible. like here, Titus 1:7... "For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker [hurtful], not given to filthy lucre;"

Haven't read it. I picked up the term from English literature, or background reading, some where. Sounds like an appropriate read, though -- considering my attitude toward capitalism.

Which of several books are you talking about?