No, but the cat wouldn't let me sleep in, so there's that. And it's cold and windy and I really don't want to go out and muck out the chicken coup. So a good time to stay inside and trade insults with whomever is willing. — Banno

Chicken shit!

The event staged, seats set around the TV, popcorn buttered; the fighters enter the ring and proceed to dance around each other for the whole first round, feigning and fainting with extraordinary athletic ability and vigour, but without throwing a single substantive blow at risk of being hit; the crowd not as impressed with either of them, than each of them seems by the other!

So your counterargument is that you don't want to? The point is that burden of proof is on the one claiming something. You claim the existence of God, then the burden of proof is on you. If you don't even know Russell's teapot I understand why you are confused, but it proves my point even better. In contemporary philosophy, theism is a joke. The scrutiny required for the level of philosophy done today requires much more than theists can manage to provide. — Christoffer

I'm no stranger to flying spaghetti monsters, and the like. And I'm not a theist. Do try to keep up! I'm agnostic, questioning your atheism. You introduced 'what theists think' as a strawman; rather than taking on the more challenging task of proving your atheist knowledge claim, when really, if your position is based in a logical epistemology, you should admit you don't know! Consequently, I feel entitled to suggest that your atheism is motivated, and I wonder by what? You seem very keen to defend communism!

There's a teapot between Mercury and Venus and you can't prove me wrong! — Christoffer

Why would I want to?

This is basic stuff. — Christoffer

It is on your part. It's basic stuff you assume I don't know, because I'm asking you to look beyond such basic arguments. For example:

Nietzsche's inversion of values refers to how Christianity reverses the natural into the opposite. It stems from his contempt for Christianity. — Christoffer

Nietzsche was wrong. Nihilism is false. Man in a state of nature was not an amoral, self serving brute - and we can know this because our species survived, generation after generation, raising children - for millions of years. Homo sapiens is a moral creature.

There was an inversion of values - but it wasn't the strong fooled by the weak. It was the difference between hunter gatherer tribal morality - and the morality necessary to multi tribal society. Religion is the first politics - and philosophy, law and economics. Faith is required because of the social significance of the concept; not because of its apparent truth or eminent provability. Indeed, religion seems to go out of its way to stretch credulity! Why? Because belief serves a purpose - and arguably, it's an important purpose that's been displaced without being replaced.

If you accept that the concept of God serves this important purpose - and you may well recognise that it has done, but argue now - philosophy, politics, law, economics have become wholly adequate alternate sources of authoritative value in themselves, as you say here:

God and religion is still irrelevant to humanity if we have good non-religious ethics system in place (which we have) and live our lives with self-reflection, skepticism, and a sense of logic and rational reasoning. — Christoffer

It's not that I'd disagree; per se - but would just point out that humankind is barrelling toward extinction - while the Amish, by comparison - could go on raising barns forever. Their way of life is sustainable, while ours isn't. And that unsustainability, I would argue - is the consequence of a mistaken relationship between religion and science, that is in turn the author of your mistaken relationship to God.

Given apparent design in nature, God is a credible hypothesis explaining existence; the first cause argument is about as reasonable as, and not exclusive of the big bang. You would not conclude an hypothesis is false, simply because it had not been proven true. Epistemically, you'd be agnostic with regard to the validity of the hypothesis - whereas, you positively claim to know there's no God.

Many theists are blinded by the idea that religion and God is a foundation for which a fragile society is built upon. It's the Nietzchian fear of nihilism. — Christoffer

All civilisations are built on religious foundations; because attributing moral authority to God, is how hunter gatherer tribes joined together to form the first multi-tribal societies - about 35,000 years after we find evidence of truly human intelligence in the archaeological record.

This was site of Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - not the strong fooled by the weak, but a translation from morality inherent to the structural relations of the kinship tribe, to objectivised social values, attributed to God. Thus, the natural obligation upon anyone hacking away at the pillars of moral authority is that they have some adequate alternative - and this politically correct secular relativism is neither one thing nor another.

The only people who think that a society can't exist without a religious foundation, are the ones within such a religious framework. It's a usual theist argument that society needs religion and faith, but every time we have true atheism as the foundation in society, it's actually a lot more peaceful and rational. The common counterargument from theists then points out Leninist and Stalinist communism as an example of atheistic societies, but this is just false. Not only is it a simplification of Marxism, since Lenin and Stalin corrupted those ideas, but the key factor is that both Stalin and Lenin replaced God as a religious figure. — Christoffer

I would raise Stalin and Mao as examples of atheist societies butchering their populations on a scale that make Hitler look like an amateur genocidal nutter! Exactly that, and they're actual examples - to compare to your purely hypothetical atheist societies, you claim are always more peaceful. Would you care to name these havens of veritable enlightenment?

As I've said, atheism is about logical reasoning as a foundation, not proving God's lack of existence. If anything, in philosophy, the burden of proof is on the theist side and has been forever. — Christoffer

That's some myopic logic, don't you think? I cannot accept that's how this question presents itself to people. I think maybe, that's how you post-rationalise your deeper motives, but I cannot imagine someone becoming familiar with epistemology and logic, before encountering the concept of God, and so concluding "the burden proof is with the theist, and that shall be an end of the matter!" Well, it's not the end of the matter because God is a concept that serves a wider social and political purpose - and logic aside, it's probably not wise to undermine that concept without even understanding its function!

An atheist doesn't have a lack of belief in God, there's nothing lacking, there's just no logical assumption that there is a God, so it's not even on the list. The only reason atheists speak and think about the concept of "God" is because theists have proposed such ideas in society. — Christoffer

The problem is that "such ideas" are arguably, the foundation of society; and here's where the atheist must falter - short of an alternate higher power in which to invest ultimate authority. Science has not been allowed to step into that role; even while science describes a literal truth, and way of thinking that decentralises the divine mystery.

Had science been recognised as the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation, and pursued and integrated as divine enlightenment over the past 400 years or so - we'd have both science and God as sources of authority; and knowing what's true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's true, we'd be healthy, upright and prosperous.

But that's not what happened; and what we have, in some respects, is the worst of both worlds. The rationalising influence of science is blunted; merely serving to disenchant, and so undermining traditional bases of authority, without quite ushering in the scientific miracle of a rational development of resources - that ideally, would have occurred as (circumstantial) proof of divine benevolence.

Consequently, IMO - anyone less than a Marxist radical must surely err on the side of agnosticism; not least because, science doesn't actually rule out the existence of God. Strictly speaking, opinion aside - agnosticism is a rightful epistemic status, and always has been. No-one really knows! Hence the mystery!

the idea that atheists lack a belief in God has become the norm explanation for atheism, which I don't think is accurate to what drives an atheist. — Christoffer

At the very least, the concept of God is an important social and political phenomena, the atheist would declare false without proof for what reason? I wonder!

Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. — Wittgenstein

If Spengler is right, what makes you believe the infinite is unachievable? If I had a few tens of billions to spend, I'd drill for magma energy - close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, line the bore holes with pipes, and pump liquid through to produce steam to drive turbines - for limitless, base load clean electricity. Then I'd sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle, farm fish, protect the forests, make the deserts bloom, and live happily ever after!

Point being, this could be the dawn for humankind; and a renaissance for western civilisation - for how else, but western industry and capitalism, could the technology be applied?

Humankind could secure a prosperous and sustainable future - by addressing and overcoming the threat from climate change - but only if we adopt the right approach.

The common assumption that production and consumption must be reduced, as if to eek out finite resources, is a mistaken conclusion in the course of Malthusian ideas; proven conclusively false by 200 years of history, in which food production has far outpaced population growth.

This was achieved by the invention of tractors and fertilisers, and so by technological innovation we transcended the equation of Malthusian pessimism. Similarly, we can transcend the limits to growth equation by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, to produce endless clean electricity, capture carbon, hydrogen fuel, desalinate sea water to irrigate land, recycle - and we can live well, long into the future.

Well, that opening post is... embarrassing. — Banno

I have to agree. The first post should be a statement of one's own position! For all the learned philosophical arguments rallied to assault a dictionary definition of atheism, I still don't know why 3017 is a Christian Existentialist.

counterpunch You couldn't resist could you!!! — Mystic

I shouldn't resist. That's the point. And yet I'm enormously careful in my fearless investigations - I have no desire to turn the apple cart upside down. I like apples! I want more apples! More carts! And I want them sustainably - and that's not too much to ask!

After much philosophical reflection, La Rochefoucauld concluded that self esteem is the reason why we do most of what we do. We want to feel proud of ourselves, so even when we think we are being generous and selfless, we still unconsciously look at ourselves in the mirror saying "ain't I look good?" — Olivier5

I love it. It's so dark! It's not untrue. There's something we're responsible to in our thoughts - and it's not clear what that is. I conceive of "it" in terms of the truth value of a scientific understanding of reality, and sustainability as a value, as objective as is possible to be - in that one must exist in order to have values! It's the principle value! Existence - at stake! If in that regard alone there might be dispensation from the Gods to look to a scientifically valid prospect for a prosperous and sustainable future, then Amen! The energy is there, we need it. It will work. please!

How dark is that?

Oh, and timing....

I think stand up would be good.
But practice... — Mystic

Thank you for your sage advice. But I must away, for even now - I begin a long and arduous journey in search of the one true humour!

You actually have some good jokes.
I like some of em. But a lot of dross in between.
Your timing is off.
And your getting your kunts mixed up... — Mystic

How gracious of you to notice all the dross in between. Maybe I should give up being a crusader for the myth of sustainability, and become a stand up comedian. Or failing that, a priest!

I doubt you have questions. — Mystic

I have questions.

For instance, Kent - how come no-one recognised him when he put his glasses on?

More like your a crusader for the myth of sustainability, with a penchant for clichéd humour. — Mystic

Hey, I never tell the same joke twice. ...I mean, hey, sustainability is not a myth!

Also,from the texts and life's of
Nietzeche,plato,Wittgenstein,aristotle,Kent,hegel. — Mystic

Wow! I didn't know we had such a scholar among us! Good to know. If I have any questions about the life's or texts of "Nietzeche,plato,Wittgenstein,aristotle,Kent,hegel" I'll give you a shout!

Excessive reflection is a sign of low self esteem. And the title philosopher often used to bolster prestige,an appeal to authority. — Mystic

How do you know "Excessive reflection is a sign of low self esteem"? What examples can you cite of the title 'philosopher' being used to bolster prestige?

I gave the matter some thought and a coupla points I want to discuss. — TheMadFool

I've been thinking about this for years, and I've done a fair bit of reading on it - and it makes no sense to me, or to the facts, to consider morality exclusively human, or even the consequence of conscious thought - not least because, if human beings were amoral brutes, as Nietzsche and Dostoevsky allude, we'd have wiped ourselves out.

William Lane Craig, not someone a philosopher might want to cite, said in a debate that self-awareness, knowing that you exist, amplifies suffering (hyperalgesia, allodynia) and I recall mentioning it somewhere that that's the key to morality - our suffering magnified by our sense of self, we begin to, or more accurately we're forced to, think about right and wrong (morality). — TheMadFool

In chimpanzee society, they share food and groom each other. But they also remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours from those who don't reciprocate, to encourage social cooperation. The same arguments play out in human civilisation with regard to taxation and welfare.

Animals, most of them, lack self-awareness and even among those we've determined are self-aware are only so in very rudimentary ways. Thus, morality can't be a matter of simple biology common to all animals - — TheMadFool

Social animals tend to have moral behaviours, like meerkats for example. They live in big burrows, and some will stand guard while others forage, and issue warnings of the approach of predators.

2. The usual way morality is explained by the theory of evolution is by demonstrating how, for example, altruism benefits the altruistic individual. — TheMadFool

Sharing food, standing guard - are examples of altruistic behaviour, and the benefit is in reciprocation. Reciprocation is what makes moral behaviour an evolutionary advantage in the struggle to survive and breed.

Yet, deep down, we can feel it in our hearts, we know something's off about it, our hearts (feelings) don't share our mind's (rationality) convictions that morality has now been explained by evolutionary theory. — TheMadFool

I could not disagree more....at least, not without risk of being banned for the kind of language I'd need to use to adequately express how much I disagree! I don't know of anyone else saying morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics. But it's in how we react: That's funny. You look great. That's wrong! We just know, instinctively.

Further, if you look to Piaget - and infant development in psychology, again, we get a lot of ingrained moral behaviours, like sharing between infants, when one is given less than the other. Are you suggesting that all infants, somehow reason this out?

No! Morality predates human intellect in evolution history, and predates moral education of the individual. Morality is an innate sense; drilled into us by evolution. I found something that might help:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/freedom-learn/201809/infants-instincts-help-share-and-comfort

Hate to break it to you but no, you wouldn't! Sorry! — TheMadFool

That's fine: after all - wadda you know?

By your own admission - fuck all!

I rest my case! — TheMadFool

I've waited to say this, until now:

"Post-Brexit Britain should abandon the EU’s “excessively cautious” approach to regulation and light a bonfire of red tape to fuel economic growth, a task force commissioned by Boris Johnson has said...."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/06/15/post-brexit-britain-should-light-bonfire-eu-red-tape-fuel-economic/

Told you so!

You would know, right? — TheMadFool

Yes. I would.

That's an explanation but I'm sure you wouldn't go so far as to say that's the explanation, no? — TheMadFool

Yes. I would.

Morality, if you haven't already noticed, is human-exclusive i.e. only humans seem to possess it in degrees that would qualify morality as a distinct entity. — TheMadFool

No. It's not. As I already said, even chimpanzees have a moral order of sorts. What's most distinct about human morality is that it is intellectually articulated. Explicit, as opposed to embedded in the hierarchical structures of the tribe.

...so the rest of your post is moot!

Dostoevsky's warning - if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted — TheMadFool

Wrong again!

Morality comes from human beings - from evolution within a tribal context. Moral behaviours were advantageous to the tribe, in competition with other tribes, and advantageous to the individual within the tribe.

Astonishing that neither Nietzsche nor Dostoevsky reasoned that man must have raised generation after generation of young; even if we forgive them not knowing that even chimpanzees have social hierarchy and moral order of sorts, this would seems fairly obvious - except to someone who truly believes that religion is the well spring of morality, and disproven by evolution - implies there's no morality.

Well, there is. Most fundamentally, it's an innate sensibility.

I would have thought that development of an economic and social philosophy NOT based on consumerism and acquisition might be of vital importance. — Wayfarer

Then you'd be wrong again! Science can easily sustain capitalism - by harnessing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma. This isn't possible for unreformed ideologues; sovereign nation states jealous of their interests, who didn't reform because the Church made sure people believed that science isn't true, and doesn't describe reality. God does!

So ideologues continued, unreformed in relation to science as truth, but using science to achieve their primitive ends - until humankind stands on the brink of extinction. But because ideologues still do not value a scientific understanding of reality, even now, they cannot encompass the reality of limitless amounts of clean energy from magma - that could be used to produce endless electricity, hydrogen fuel, for desalination and irrigation, carbon capture and sequestration, recycling - providing for a prosperous and sustainable future.

There remains a chance - a slim chance, that we could recognise this error, and so create a justifying political rationale for the application of technology on the basis of scientific merit, and your proscription is some kind of communism. You make me sick.

You've got it all backwards. Man didn't challenge God. Man challenged a book about God, and a war mongering, corrupt institution built on that book, and got burnt at the stake for his troubles! Your post is gloating over the fact that religion has successfully undermined science - by putting Galileo on trial for heresy, and encouraging subjectivist philosophy, starting with Descartes, to the exclusion of the objective.

Maybe you think you are going to Heaven, and so it doesn't matter to you that depriving science of recognition as the means to establish valid knowledge of reality has allowed government and industry to abuse science, and apply technology badly, or worse, madly - until the human species is looking extinction in the face!

But for me, it matters that humankind is headed for extinction. My claim on immortality is not supernatural - but genetic, intellectual and economic. If I do not belong to a species with a future, everything is at best, mere masturbation!

Your refusal to take these accusations seriously shows your moral vacuity. If someone accused me of genocide, I'd take care not to appear to gloat over it!

Indigenous to where? We all came from Africa about 70,000 years ago.

*Just to clarify the focus of my paper will be on Canadian/North American Indigenous peoples, not Australian Aborigines or other Indigenous groups (as this is a Canadian history course). — Grre

Surely you mean early colonialists!

Is self esteem a lack of philosophical reflection?

With many positions on modernity and the individual, can one say they are indifferent? Some philosophers say we are still living in modernity, for some we are in post-modernity, some say we were never modern. — Warren

I'm a neo-enlightenment philosopher!

***

This is a common, and flawed, defense. — Foghorn

Is it? Please show me an example, and explain in what ways it is flawed. And could you do so without emojis? I'm not a teenage girl!

Ok, but science is not a machine. It's run by human beings. And so declaring management "science based" does not automatically remove that management from the kinds of emotional agendas which rightly concern you. — Foghorn

Science is not many things! It is however, an increasingly coherent and valid understanding of reality, to compare to religious, political and economic ideological descriptions of reality.

As example, quite a few scientists willingly volunteered to develop the atomic bomb, even though at least some of them were clear minded enough to understand that doing so would present an existential threat to civilization. They weren't evil, they were just human. — Foghorn

The nuclear bomb was developed because the US feared Germany would develop it first. Not because scientists thought it would be a spiffing idea. But because nations in ideological competition use science for ideological ends, with no regard to a scientific understanding of reality. Again, your example shows a need to accept a scientific understanding of reality, and apply technology accordingly.

Slapping "science based" on the regulation process doesn't remove the human element, because scientists too have religious, political and economic agendas which they pursue, just like everybody else. — Foghorn

That's not correct. One doctor can tell if another doctor has treated a patient with regard to the best scientific/medical knowledge. A Morbidity and Mortality Conference - is a venue in which doctors gather to assess the treatment of a deceased patient, and they determine whether anything done was wrong in relation to the medical science. It does not preclude some 'all too human' Harold Shipman type - using medical knowledge to murder people, but saying it's not possible to regulate technology with regard to a scientific understanding of reality, is false.

This is the simplest thing really.

1) Everyone takes it to be an obvious given that the powers made available to children should be restricted due to their limited maturity, experience and judgement etc. — Foghorn

Only it's not simple, because your conclusion is a need to "dethrone the science clergy" whatever that means. Whereas, to my mind, your Pandora's Box argument, speaks eloquently for the science based regulation of technology. i.e. making decisions about which technologies to apply on the basis of a scientific understanding of reality - rather than, religious political and economic ideology.

This seems a wildly inaccurate characterization of Wayfayer's writing. You're just sinking your own ship with this kind of talk. — Foghorn

Go make me a tiny wookie!

No kidding. I have not said anything about religious conviction, you resort to that because your own dogmas are being challenged. — Wayfarer

Your determined incomprehension is not a challenge to my ideas. It's merely annoying. Sustainability is my only dogma. I believe humankind should survive. Applying technology in relation to a scientific understanding of reality, rather than for the sake of God, flags and money, is how sustainability is achieved. I know you are an anti-science God botherer from previous discussions. You'd be one of those people attacking Craig Venter in 2008, as 'playing God' for creating artificial life in the lab.

Yes, I understand that too, and I addressed it. — Wayfarer

The point you addressed, and I quote, that "science is important to every facet of modern life" - is not my point at all. You mis-characterise my argument to make things easier for yourself, responding to your own straw man ideas of my argument, rather than what I am saying.

So, what does ‘a scientific understanding of reality’ mean, given that it must of necessity be ‘incomplete’? — Wayfarer

The world understood via the lens of physics, chemistry and biology, as opposed to the world understood via the lens of God, flags and money.

It means that it’s not ‘an understanding of reality’ as such. — Wayfarer

I do not accept that. Science has a very good understanding of the world we inhabit - and remaining questions about the big bang, and/or quantum mechanics, do not imply that what science knows is false.

The ‘scientific worldview’ now is vastly different to the ‘scientific worldview’ of 1920 and it will probably be vastly different again in 2120. — Wayfarer

You cannot use the fact that scientific knowledge improves over time to argue that it must always be false. Consider the sequence the Bible, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein. Even the Bible acknowledges that there are heavenly bodies in motion. It doesn't know which are moving, but nonetheless, says something true about reality. Copernicus ideas are more valid, and Galileo again improves upon Copernicus, etc. Consequently, the scientific worldview of today is not vastly different to that of the 1920's, because they describe the same thing. And that's why Khun's incommensurability theory is wrong. The object is commensurable.

You're subtly conflating the two all the time in your posts. — Wayfarer

No, I'm not. When I say 'a scientific understanding of reality' it is to point to the natural world, objectively apprehended; to compare to an ideological understanding of reality: i.e. God, flags and money. It's not to suggest that science can locate every particle in the universe, and tell us how fast its moving, in what direction.

I agree that geothermal energy is likely important, but this thread is not about that issue. — Wayfarer

This thread is about people who disagree with the contention: science is good. You are one of those people. I am not one of those people.

I am explaining why you're wrong; and why a scientific worldview is the best guide to the application of technology - (as opposed to God flags and money) in relation to assertions that science is responsible for climate change, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

It's people like you, who have religious convictions they cannot challenge, by thinking of what a scientific understanding of reality implies - who are responsible for the misapplication of technology threatening human existence. You needn't worry. Even if face of evolution, religion actually fares quite well - not because it's true so much as that it has served an important purpose for a long time!

With all due respect, you have not grasped my meaning - and the points you make are irrelevant and increasingly confused. If you are unable to grasp the idea of a scientific understanding of reality, to compare to the world as described by religious, political and economic ideologies, then there's little point continuing while talking at crossed purposes. Thanks for your interest.

A philosopher imagined a donkey,
stood between two bales of hay,
would not decide which to fancy,
until it starved and withered away.

I decided to test out this theory,
that when tested did not prove a fact,
the donkey ate both, and though it may be crass,
I'm renaming the concept, Buridan's fat ass!

I disagree: science is the understanding of certain aspects of reality. Those understandings are not infallible and are always subject to the possibility of falsification. — Janus

To suggest that science can only be valid knowledge if it is a complete description of reality is incorrect. As a matter of methodology, all scientific knowledge is held to be provisional in lieu of the possibility of further evidence - that may as yet, be unaccounted for. That's only good and proper. However, to imply therefore that science doesn't know anything, or that scientific knowledge claims are uncertain, is to misunderstand.

I ask that you compare a scientific understanding of reality, with an ideological understanding of reality. One is factual, the other conventional. In one, the world is made up of sovereign nation states in political and economic competition. God, flags and money. This is the reality you see; and it's on this basis we develop and apply technologies - and what I'm saying is, an ideological worldview excludes possibilities that exist, only if one adopts a scientific worldview.

The world described by science is a single planetary environment; occupied by human beings, who are all members of the same species, and presumably, have a common interest in sustainability! The earth is a big ball of molten rock that we could tap into, to meet all our energy needs, and more!

I really, really do understand that. I make a living as a technical writer, I’ve worked for and with many engineers and software developers. I’m not a rustic peasant, nor an ideologue intent on dragging the world back into medievalism. I really do understand that science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life. I comprehend that, understand it, fully appreciate it. — Wayfarer

You say you understand, but the point is not that:

"science and technology are critical to almost every facet of modern life."

The point is that there's a difference between an ideological understanding of reality, and a scientific understanding of reality.

Do you understand that?

As regards scientific understanding of reality - science comprises hypotheses and models, which inform and guide technology and further scientific discovery. But as many here have already pointed out, science can be used for good or ill. The decision how to use science, what to research with it, is not itself a scientific question, it is guided by many factors, including curiosity, intuition, patronage, politics, and convention among many other things. Many working scientists are employed by industry for commercial, military and industrial ends. Hopefully they are generally working for positive ends, but there’s no scientific criteria for judging those. That rests on value judgement. — Wayfarer

No, you do not! Immediately, you reduce science to a loose collection of tools to use for your own ends! And that is the very reason we are threatened with extinction. Using science as a tool with no regard to the understanding of reality science describes, allows science to be used for ill.

We can argue about the objective fact/ subjective value - is/ought nature of sustainability if you like, but we hardly need to derive moral order from fact to prioritise applying clean energy technology over burning coal, for instance!

But you can’t simply assume that it is has an intrinsically privileged point of view. So much remains a question of interpretation, of what the empirical facts mean, and that again is not a matter for science per se. — Wayfarer

Yes, you can assume science has an intrinsically privileged point of view, and you do so all the time!

G7 to agree tough measures on burning coal to tackle climate change
By Dulcie Lee & Joseph Lee
BBC News
Published 1 hour ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57456641

Again with the same green commie fallacy that sustainability requires sacrifice - imposed by authoritarian government. Malthusians to a man!

Malthus was wrong. Just as we invented tractors and fertilizers, and food production far outpaced population growth, by applying the right energy technology we can transcend the limits to growth equation.

Harnessing (effectively) limitless clean energy from magma, we can defeat climate change; not merely mitigate it, but overcome it - and allow for a favourable balance between environmental sustainability and human welfare, going forward from where we are.

There's no need for authoritarian governments imposing energy poverty to reduce demand if economic activity were based on plentiful clean energy. It's there, the big ball of molten rock beneath our feet contains limitless high grade clean energy, surely not impossible to harness in face of this global existential threat.

Burn less coal - and make us pay more for energy for the sake of that sacrifice! That's the height of their ideologically limited ambitions!