Equal replacements in terms of EROI and all other conveniences are not available at scale, and not within the timeframe necessary to avert climate change. — ChatteringMonkey

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it.

People want to solve the problem in the abstract, sure, why not if they get told it won't cost them anything. I don't think they want to solve it in practice because they don't realise everything the solution entails. That is the point I've been making, yes. — ChatteringMonkey

I suppose the same could have been said about smoking. Banning smoking and heavily taxing cigarettes was a political decision, and there were definite costs associated with it. But it was eventually done, after years of delay, because the evidence became undeniable.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.
— Mikie

What about the obvious answer? That it's just very hard to do, and goes against the very fundaments our world is build on. The ozone layer issue got solved rather quickly, because swapping out some spray can gasses only marginally impacted some economic niches. — ChatteringMonkey

It wasn’t that hard to do. It wasn’t done because the “economic niches” didn’t want it done and fought against it tooth and nail. This has been very well documented. Frontline did a great 3-part series on this last year:

part, the energywende. — ChatteringMonkey

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake.

They certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond.

I think all of political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion/common culture. — ChatteringMonkey

It comes down to a different analysis of power. Yes, political action happens against the backdrop of public opinion— especially in a relatively free country like the US. But what influences public opinion?

Chomsky’s classic Manufacturing Consent is good on this.

I think the quote unquote "real driver" behind all of this, is the people not really wanting the changes needed to solve this problem. — ChatteringMonkey

I know you think that— you’re just wrong. People around the world, and in the US, want something done. The solutions are already available in most cases (apart from heavy industry). If other countries can put in place sensible policies, so can we. Won’t be overnight, but could happen — and should have started years ago.

Why didn’t it start years ago, by the way? Is it really that “the people” were so stupid and ignorant that they didn’t push for it? Partly true I guess. But the political class elected to make the significant decisions did nothing.

Wikipedia the “investment theory of party competition.” Or see Tom Ferguson’s book “the golden rule.” When huge majorities of the public want something, it doesn’t matter. What actually happens in terms of policy aligns with what the wealthiest people want.

people will never ever choose solving a perceived far-off problem before their short term energy-security. — ChatteringMonkey

False choice. It’s not Stone Age living versus clean energy, as it’s often portrayed. And Europe is doing much more than the US.

I don't doubt the Oil companies played a dirty role in all of this, but pushing their preferred policies wouldn't be possible if they didn't find some fertile ground in the public to plant their seed. — ChatteringMonkey

The education system and especially the media play a big role in this. Not to mention fossil fuel companies bribe and lobby both parties in the US but essentially own one outright (Republicans). It’s similar elsewhere, but only in areas where the economy relies on fossil fuels (Australia, Russia, Canada, etc.). You have the strongest propaganda there, so more climate denial.

It’s the same tactic used by tobacco companies. “Hey people just want to smoke — the people don’t want restrictions — the science isn’t clear.” Powerful industries can afford expensive propaganda. I don’t blame the average person for being taken in by it.

But not all ongoing conversations are doing philosophy. — L'éléphant

No one said they were.

Philosophy involves many things. To privilege or emphasize “ongoing conversation” is a definition, or at least part of one. It’s distinguishing one phenomenon from another — philosophy is not x (a set of facts), but y (an ongoing conversation). The meaning of philosophy is the subject.

To argue it’s an “explanation” is just playing games. Trees aren’t so much clouds as they are entities with trunks and leaves — I’m not defining a tree, I’m just “explaining” the features of a tree. Come on.

I contend that duty is perhaps the single strongest motivator for action I can think of — ToothyMaw

Ok. What’s your evidence for this? Where’s the argument? If we’re just to accept this — to what end? What’s the point?

Maybe I missed something in the OP.

I take issue with the idea that this is just a matter of political will — ChatteringMonkey

It’s absolutely a matter of political will. There are a number of factors which influence political still and government action. But the biggest influence is money, which comes from the corporate sector.

It’s fine to say it’s a complicated issue with many moving parts, and will require major changes. But that’s a truism — that’s the case in any issue.

The fact is that we need sweeping government action on par with WWII and Covid. The reason we’re not getting it is because of fossil fuel companies. If you fail to see this you’re just missing it. I’d recommend Naomi Oreskes new book.

You seem to be starting from Descartes, and so the obsession with "knowing" and the idea of an outside world. But you have to exist (and in a particular mode) to even ask the question in the first place. It's kind of silly to doubt this or that, or use words like "know" or "certainty" as if we're certain about their meaning. What's so great about certainty, anyway?

In any case, "I am, therefore I am consciously aware" is about right. But then again, this overlooks the 99% or so of our lives that are unconscious, habitual, automatic, etc. So perhaps unconsciousness can tell us more about our being rather than consciousness.

No sense trying to figure anything out unless you first reject democracy and the idea of social concern — while accepting as legitimate the institution of slavery.

But if you do that, Trump-supporting fascists make perfect sense and are very consistent.

In the real world, if there are extenuating circumstances people are allowed to continue working. There's also a vote for whether to strike, it's not simply declared by a leader.

What's your point? Seems like more thinly veiled anti-union stuff to me.

“Philosophy is not x, but more y.”

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition.

So what happened? A few folk provided their own lists of synonyms, then the thread petered out. — Banno

Yeah, as I expected. I said at the beginning there were no wrong answers, so there was no follow up from me— despite the fact that disagreement and desire for further clarification was present. I was interested in how one would respond on the spot, if asked. The answers I did get were interesting.

If there is a cop out here, it is in thinking that by providing a definition, one is doing philosophy. — Banno

Except I have never once made that claim, and in fact have often argued against the idea for the last four years.

Philosophy is not a list of facts, so much as an ongoing conversation. — Banno

Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.”

:fire: :clap:

Also know as: fair and balanced.

Trump is and has been a squeaky clean individual. No wrongdoing. And if there is wrongdoing, it’s never been verified by evidence.

If there is evidence, it’s not evidence enough for a jury.

If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased.

And so on. The Trump cult’s legal philosophy in a nutshell. :yawn:

To think there are still people hysterical about “communism.” :lol:

Jesus…

Why are they allowing this man to continue? It’s not like they’ll lose the seat. How bizarre.

In that moment, while Mitch McConnell’s dying brain struggled and failed to make sense of its present reality, all the dourness was gone from his face. All the downward gravitational pull from a lifetime in the DC swamp. All the seriousness. All the scheming. All the warmongering, tyranny and abusiveness.

In that moment of amnesiac innocence, you’d never be able to tell from looking at Mitch McConnell how many people he’s helped kill. How much suffering he’s helped cause. How much health and thriving he’s frozen out of humanity in his joyless facilitation of corporate dystopia.

All you’d see is a man. A cute, harmless, befuddled old man. All the dark, dense, contracted energy gone from his form in a sweet tender moment of intimate indivisibility.

— Caitlin Johnstone

But that wasn't my aim. — Amity

Fair enough!

I'll grade you as Excellent!
And I am in a position to know. Being an authentic Goddess. True that. — Amity

:grin: Can’t argue with that.



Appreciate the response.

So, you thought that I was attempting to situate the questioning as a kind of psychological therapy? — Amity

No, but the aim (provide no answers but assist others in discovering their own) seemed similar.

Does having a psychology background hinder or help you in forum interactions? Both/Neither/Other. — Amity

Both.

Are you always trying to figure people out, according to some little test? — Amity

:lol: I suppose so. But more like getting to know them better. And I don’t consider this a “test,” really — although I can see how it would be viewed that way. I’m in no position to grade anyone’s work.

People trust who they trust, and more often than not they’ll trust Uncle Buck before they trust some state-run or state-influenced mouthpiece. — NOS4A2

State-run or corporate-run mouthpiece. But I repeat myself.

Maybe this thread has had the unintended consequence of separating those brave enough to take a stab at it and those finding excuses not to. :joke:

'Rogerian'? — Amity

My fault. It’s my psychology background— Carl Rogers was a therapist, and the technique I was referring to was one in which the therapist provides no answers, but creates a conducive atmosphere where the patient discovers the answers for himself/herself.

That is, I hope the above tells the careful reader something about myself, or at least about the way I think that I think. — unenlightened

I think it does. Still digesting some of those…

In Plato's Dialogues, is Socrates searching for a definitive definition of a concept?
Or the reality behind the word? — Amity

Neither.

In any case, I think my title has led some to believe I’m really asking that this list be definitive. I think I’ll remove that from the title, as it’s misleading.

This surprised me a little so far:

Mind
(See consciousness above.) — 180 Proof

Mind
Consciousness — Wayfarer

Wasn’t expecting too much agreement.

Yes, and usually triggered by the meaning of x. Whether justice or piety or virtue or whatever.
— Mikie

It's an idea of 'justice' related to action or behaviour. — Amity

Ideas have meaning. The dialogues pretty quickly transition into what is meant.

“Curiosity.”
— Mikie

Desire to know or discover. — Amity

Sure— but I was responding to your question of “why do you want to know”. If the kid said “curiosity,” then we’d either say we have no idea what an aorta is, or what it means as a word, or try our best to describe or define it in some way.

I don’t think using a kind of Rogerian technique in these circumstances is appropriate, however well-meaning the intention.

“What’s the aorta Dad?”
— Mikie
The first response:
Why do you want to know? — Amity

That’s what your response would be?

Okay: “Curiosity.”

I agree with — Amity

I'd use the term, and encourage them to use it, so the child can see how it is used. — Banno

All kind of sounds like a cop out to me.

“What’s the aorta Dad?”
“Let me use the word so you can see how it’s used.”

Explaining what we mean, or think a word means, doesn’t require universal application or ultimate truth.

If the current fashionable state of philosophy is to answer with a slogan like “it’s how it’s used,” I think we’re in real trouble.

I prefer I use the term ... — 180 Proof

Fair enough.

Interesting list!

Definitive list of definitions.

Of course, there is no such thing. — Amity

Of course. The title is tongue-in-cheek.

Off the cuff nonsense. — Amity

Your answers didn’t seem nonsensical to me.

If this life student is asking questions about such things, then they already have a degree of knowledge. — Amity

Sure. So what?

He asked questions of students. He made them think things through for themselves. — Amity

Yes, and usually triggered by the meaning of x. Whether justice or piety or virtue or whatever.

Perception

Discrimination. — Moliere

I like this. A good synonym. It assumes a kind of interpreting. :up:



Interesting.

I realize you and me and “Being” have a long history haha— so I won’t go there.

There's a way of understanding each, that is not given by setting out their definitions in words but seen in the way they are used. — Banno

Okay…so how do you use them?

But further, any such string of words will be inadequate, failing to account for all uses. — Banno

True. Still, I’m sure you use these words like anyone else, and usually mean something by them. So that’s what I was asking for. If a kid would ask for your own take on these terms, would the answer be “it depends on use” or would you have some (albeit provisional) answer?

It’s hard not to be tribal, I think. Especially when tribalism has been encouraged for 40 years.

In the specific case of US politics, the best approach is simply not to identify with either party. There is no labor or socialist party, like in any other comparable country, so it’s not that difficult to extricate oneself from the duopoly. The biggest political group in the US (besides non-voters) is independents, I think largely for the reason that many are turned off by the blind, cult-like following of party politics.

The Republicans have taken it to the next level of insanity. It’s a sign that their values simply no longer align with majorities, or reality. So the lies and gaslighting and demonization of the other side has to reach extremes to make up for it.

Trump says the election was stolen? We’ll find some way to believe it. Trump tries to overturn the election? Fine. Incites an insurrection? Fine. Major donors like the fossil fuel industry is causing environmental harm? There is no environmental harm — or China needs to lead the way.

And on and on.

Because your questions are inane and condescending. You ask insulting questions like that, expect responses of like kind.

Also, what’s truly “appalling” is your long line of thoroughly debunked, misleading, minimizing comments.

Feel free to chit chat with fellow climate deniers. Leave me out of it.

Adults are talking. Your random, fatuous questions are irrelevant.

Roomer are strong in political circles that Ron DeSanctimonious, whose Presidential run is a shambles, and whose poll numbers have absolutely crashed, putting him 3rd and 4th in some states, will be dropping out of the Presidential race in order to run, in Florida, against Rick Scott for Senate

Spellcheck fails him again. Kind of like “looser” when they mean “loser.” Since it’s an actual word, it doesn’t correct it, but who would think “rumor” is spelled that way in the first place? :lol:

Anyway, this is the buffoon we’re discussing here. One of the biggest political losers of all time, and yet he had a wide enough platform to work his con man magic on millions of people, who will apparently go to their graves defending him. It’s hilarious to watch, but also quite sad/pathetic.

It's not the economy, it's Schopenhauer's Will. — schopenhauer1

Yeah but a lot of Schopenhauer is just bullshit.

In any case, we’re talking about making production better by not having it controlled by a handful of elites. The person to read in this respect is Karl, not Arthur.

Many in that audience believed their country was being taken away from them, and that they'd lose it if they weren't willing to fight for it. It was in that context that the protesters didn't stay out on the street but broke into the Capitol in search of members of Congress. — GRWelsh

Exactly. Which anyone that isn’t in the cult can see— and could see even before it happened. There were warning signs that it could turn violent, based on the weeks of escalation Trump was sowing on social media alone.

I predicted violence — I didn’t expect them to breach the Capitol building, but violence was obvious. Fortunately, the entire thing was based on a delusion, so 4/5 the people there had no clue what exactly the objective was and were just going along, mostly wandering around.

Nick McDonell, Quiet Street: On American Privilege

Still, the rich like to believe in meritocracy, even fairness. These ideas are beloved by the media, and are one of the few bipartisan talking points. Barack Obama: “Anything is possible in America.” Donald Trump: “In America, anything is possible.” Famous examples demonstrate the seductive drama of economic mobility. Henry Ford was the son of a farmer. Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros—and so on in every profession. Such examples not only make one-percenters feel good; they distract from the reality that, in the United States of America and elsewhere, success almost always, and predominantly, depends on wealth—and frequently comes at the expense of the less wealthy. I could afford to spend a month writing a book at a fancy hotel, which, when it came out, took attention away from novelists who were not as rich or connected as I am. I could afford to buy a drink for that producer, who bought the rights to my book, not someone else’s.

[…]

The fear they shared was loss of wealth. Without ever saying so, they were very much afraid of losing their country houses, the space for the grand piano, the greenhouses, the pied-à-terre where their mother-in-law stayed without being in everyone’s business. They were afraid of processed supermarket cheese; they much preferred the organic stuff, which, they emphasized, would keep them alive longer. The same could not be said of their clothes, but they were afraid of losing the Prada bags anyway, the heavy zippers, the cashmere. They didn’t want to wear polyester windbreakers, or sit on Ikea sofas, or drive a Hyundai. They were afraid of losing the safer, sleeker Mercedes. They were afraid of losing all of it, any of it. And who wouldn’t prefer a Mercedes, anyway?

But the quality of the car was not what lay at the root of the fear. They feared losing wealth not for its own sake but because it was justified, in their own minds, by intelligence, hard work, determination—that is, by character. If they lost their wealth, then, well, who were they? The true fear was not loss of wealth but loss of self.

Perhaps climate change is just a manifestation of the notion that production itself is not necessarily a positive thing. It keeps us alive, but it's instrumental in nature. We are always dissatisfied and our need for production and consumption, and work and justification of work are manifestations of this. — schopenhauer1

I mostly agree with this. I’d add an obvious point: production can be done smarter. It doesn’t have to be in the hands of a small group of people motivated almost exclusively by profit.

So they care about climate change but won't take a couple hours every two years to vote about it? — RogueAI

I don’t think they realize the importance of voting. Some rather take stronger actions, for some it’s too difficult, etc. For some it’s apathy, yes, but not 3/4.

Good question. I’m not one of them, but would like to know how many we have (if we have any at all).

Only 1 in 4 young people are voting. That's really sad. That shows they don't really care about climate change. — RogueAI

I don’t think that’s what it means at all.

You want people not to be burdened with this, at least be a situational antinatalist. — schopenhauer1

Buddy, does everything have to come back to this one issue? Makes you sound a bit like a one-trick pony. I say this in a friendly way.

People want to combat climate change, but they don't want to sacrifice their standard of living while doing it. — RogueAI

People do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s up to us to make it easier or harder. Bad habits, addictions, etc— I doubt many people want to continue with these things, but often times it’s simply “easier” than the alternative. It should be made harder. The reverse is true of good behavior — it should be made easier, regardless of what one thinks about it.

We can shape society through policy. Look at smoking. Or through technology — like streaming or digital music. I miss old record stores — but yet I’ve found myself defaulting to YouTube or Spotify because it’s that much easier — there’s less friction involved. Plus car (and computer) producers don’t bother selling their products with CD functions anyway.

None of that was my choice— if it were up to me, I’d go back to how it was before everything was on a phone. But things change and I go along because it’s easier or cheaper or more convenient somehow. Plus I don’t feel like it’s a major moral failing.

I suspect many Americans are in the same boat with climate change: they want a cleaner environment and a better planet for their kids and grandkids, but it’s expensive to buy solar panels and EVs— public transit either doesn’t exist or sucks, etc. Plus, not a lot is known about the best use of time.

That’s why it’s up to those who both care about and have a good understanding of the problem to educate and organize, to affect the necessary changes of economic and productive policy. The tobacco industry is a good example, but the fossil fuel industry is much more politically powerful, and more embedded in everything we use. So the task is harder.

So there’s no need to sacrifice much if we implement sensible changes. It’s a false choice. We subsidize fossil fuels right now. Going from an oil furnace to heat pump isn’t sacrificing anything. It’s actually an improvement.