There's that toy, the 'echt-a-sketch" -- police use it to make authentic drawings of suspects. — Bitter Crank

That's only because they're not allowed to round up the typical suspects anymore!

True enough, if the several great religions (Hindu, Buddhist, the 3 Abrahamic faiths) didn't originate with primitives, they were certainly picked up by them. The relatively small group of people who were critical in forming the great religions were probably sophisticated creative types. Just my guess. — Bitter Crank

The first artefacts that display a truly human mode of abstract conceptual thought - cave painting, burial of the dead, jewellery, improved tools etc, date back around 50,000 years - so there was a very long time between the occurrence of intellectual intelligence in homo sapiens, and the formation of the first societies. If, as I suspect - religion was necessary to the formation of the first multi-tribal societies - it's older than most people realise; older than the first known civilisations, which only date back around 12-15,000 years. That's not a long time really. Sufficient for the development of writing and the recording of what until then, had been an oral tradition.

I don't think that one can actually reconcile them; one lays them down side by side--separate, not equal, one not advancing the other. I am no longer a believer, but I took my moral core from Christianity. Way too late to renovate that part of the castle. I look to science too. Science though wasn't intended to provide moral or ethical guidance. Guidance doesn't have to come from religion, but it's the handiest source for most people. — Bitter Crank

As usual, your colloquial reasonableness is at odds with my philosophical extremism; but I think religion and science can, and ought to have been reconciled - when Galileo presented Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, the Church should have embraced and Sainted the man, rather than dragging him into court and threatening him with torture to force him to recant.

"Hurrah" they might have exclaimed - "Galileo has discovered the means to decode the word of God made manifest in Creation" - and the world would be very different today. The human species would not, I imagine, be threatened with extinction had science been granted moral authority as the means to discover truths of Creation. Instead, science was decried as heresy, and reduced in status to a whore to government and industry; used to create nuclear weapons and climate change. Truth is a moral and ethical virtue - that bridges the is/ought divide. Separate, non overlapping magisteria - they ain't.

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. That definition is, shortly put, "what matters, morally speaking, is that people feel good rather than bad, experience pleasure rather than pain, enjoyment rather than suffering", etc. That could be people generally (altruism) or just oneself (egotism); that axis is a different one from hedonism vs... non-hedonism, for which I'm unaware of a good general word. (Let me know if anyone else is!) — Pfhorrest

To show that I am sincerely sorry about the delay, I'll answer your poll:

Is suffering morally relevant?

Yes, suffering is morally relevant. Pleasure, not so much.

Is it everyone's pleasure or pain that's relevant, or only some people's / your own? — Pfhorrest

I have to assume that everyone's suffering is morally relevant to them - whether or not it is relevant to me. I remember some years ago I was sat watching the news. There was a big train crash in South America. A lot of people were hurt - and I was sat there watching, when I heard the woman next door fall down the stairs, and start screaming.

By the time I got to her front door, it was clear she had help - so I left, but the disparity of concern I felt for the woman and her broken leg - over hundreds of people far away whom I would never meet, struck me at the time as surreal. I'm trying to suggest that even while, everyone's suffering is morally relevant, it's not necessarily morally relevant to me - and that's perfectly natural.

Is there a box I can tick for that?

My comment wasn't a criticism and thank you for responding as you have. I don't dislike Peterson the ways some do. I have watched a lot of his videos and find some of them very interesting. But he has spawned many neophytes who quote his idea almost verbatim without making actual contact with the concepts in these ideas. Is he a brilliant public speaker? I think his presentation is too strained and anxious to qualify for this - he can be hard to watch because it seems so difficult for him to share his ideas. — Tom Storm

Thank you for teaching me the word "echt" - which I was unaware means "authentic and typical." I get what you mean about the anxiousness, but I like Peterson's style of public speaking. He reminds me of a Professor I had who taught Rawl's A Theory of Justice - which, rather like Peterson's narrative, is an expansive idea. I loved that class, but a lot of my fellow students hated it - precisely because it's so expansive, and draws upon huge and diverse fields of knowledge. I love how it all relates.

That said, I'm not nearly as religious as Peterson. I'm a philosopher of science, and view religion from the outside as the philosophy and politics of primitive people. I accept that religion is of huge significance to society, but in my philosophy, more as a central coordinating mechanism - that has cemented civilisation over thousands of years. Storehouse of folksy wisdom, sure. But logos?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1.

Does he mean science? Because science (at its best) is true knowledge of Creation; and so must be the word of God deciphered by man. Otherwise, how do the hierarchical social structures of a risk of lobsters apply to humankind - other than by accepting evolution, accepting science in general, and on that basis concluding that religion was invented to allow hunter gatherer tribes to join together in a single social group - by all believing in the same God, and the same moral laws. Instead, I think Peterson is a genuine believer - and maddeningly, makes no effort to reconcile these antithetical narratives, while depending on both religion and science for his arguments!

I don't like political correctness either, and I'm curious if you thought I was postmodernistic or neomarxian, and if so, why? — FlaccidDoor

You joined the forum 2 days ago and have made a grand total of 31 posts. It's difficult to get an impression of what you believe just yet; and maybe after you've been here a while, that will change anyway. So, ask me again this time next year and I may have an answer for you.

I'm glad you're not upset by me colouring outside the lines, but my thing is truth. I'm a straight shooter, and I'm not going to pretend I can make peace with political correctness bigots and bullies. If they persist, then I will oppose them. It's not difficult. They tell stupid lies; like the way they make out that the West invented slavery - when we know for a fact it existed since ancient Egypt and beyond, all around the world, until the West put an end to it.

The fact these lefties don't understand that slavery is the inherent to the human condition, and it's only an insistence on freedom that allows for freedom - as they howl against the fairest, most humane and successful civilisations ever built, is fast becoming a prime motivation. I cannot imagine how this narrative plays out around the world, but don't imagine it endears us to others all that much.

Do you think this acts as a catalyst for the polarization of people, and people would be more inclined to talk with each other otherwise? — FlaccidDoor

I do, yes - I think political correctness intends to cause resentment, which it then exploits as evidence for the need for more political correctness, and it's stifling our very human-ness. Talking to other people is now a formal affair; where all the niceties have to be observed lest someone - horror of horrors, might take offence! That could lead to a twitter mobbing, and people out to destroy your life, cost you your job, your home, wife and kids, everything - and they don't care. They are vile. Their dogma is false, and I'm glad you're not one of them - because I can't make my peace with it.

Well, you're absolutely right on the inadequacy of our understanding of consciousness, but I'd be very wary about seeking to fill those gaps with magical thinking. I don't know what you experienced. Nothing like that has ever happened to me. I seem to remember from my childhood - quasi religious upbringing, that I wanted such things to happen. I was always looking for the back door to reality when I was younger - until I discovered that the big secret is that science is true!

This is echt Jordan B Peterson. I'm not trying to be a dick but can you make the connection between those ideas? I don't think postmodernism or neo-Marxism (whatever that is) exists in this way. A postmodern rejection of values does not align with the notion that postmodernists often hold critical Marxist views of culture. These are not a rejection of values. Marxism is redolent with values and positions. — Tom Storm

Thank you very much. Yet somehow I sense that being likened to a brilliant public speaker, successful academic and clinical psychologist - isn't intended as a compliment on your end. Well, I will take it as a compliment nonetheless.

I can make the connection between neo Marxism, post modernism, critical theory and political correctness; yes, they are all related. It would be a work of some number of volumes to describe the development of these philosophies and compare and contrast their ideas. Let us be much more shallow, and simply describe what actually happened.

Communism failed, and Marxists needed another chicken to pluck. The white working class majority refused to cast off their chains and hand absolute power to the Commies! So the Commies cast around and discovered a rich untapped vein of resentment to exploit, in identity politics. It wasn't entirely dissimilar to the resentment of the working classes that Marxist sought to exploit, but still, as you suggest, quite a leap philosophically speaking. They needed a stepping stone, and post modernism provides that stepping stone precisely because it rejects such trivialities as truth and morality as socially constructed.

The aim of political correctness is not peace, harmony or social progress. That's a pretence that post modernism doesn't object to, because - on what possible basis could they object? That it's not true? Truth is relative! Because it's immoral? Morality is relative! Post modernism is the perfect vehicle for neo Marxism because such questions are moot.

Power is, and always has been the aim of Marxism; and so political correctness is a concerted attack against the "white male patriarchy" of Western civilisation; which is to say, the bourgeoise, with the white working class proles suffering the philosophical and political equivalent of collateral damage. That's why the white working class voted for brexit and Trump; because they are despised by the left. And if you don't believe me; read "Despised" by Paul Embery.

I don't believe in magic, but I think it may be possible that you smelt death - some pheromonal off-gassing, not acknowledged by the conscious brain but feeding through from the subconscious as a premonition. Or you're lying. Or have convinced yourself after the fact, that you knew before the fact. Or, of course - it could be that you're psychic, in which case - can you pick half a dozen random numbers between 1 and 59???

You already know what I'm going to say!

As long as you believe that what you are saying is worth ignoring what I asked I personally don't mind. I think everyone here is aware enough to refrain from rage baiting and getting baited. However I do think getting too lopsided in the analysis of contentious events is counterproductive towards what I made this discussion for. — FlaccidDoor

I don't accept I have an obligation to colour within the lines you draw - unless you think your comprehension is so definitive, no-one could possibly have anything to add. I read your post, and I'm responding to it in the only way I can.

I am honest, when I tell you I have no interest in making peace with political correctness. Indeed, given its postmodern rejection of values, and a neo marxian preoccupation with power for power's sake, I'm suspicious of the suggestion we should seek to make peace with this dogma. My question would be, how do we eradicate it? It's wrongheaded in a dozen different ways; and leads people - for instance, to ignore the Covid lockdown to protest against the mere fact this woman - Sarah Everard, was killed.

Such behaviour is a direct consequence of the unreasonableness of the overall politically correct narrative. Same with black lies matter. They think their politically correct righteousness is license to dismiss all other concerns! This kind of behaviour is in my view, symptomatic of the obsessive/compulsive psychology fostered by politically correct ideology - and it should be treated as threat to mental health.

The moderators sometimes take a dim view of ignoring the rules so transparently. We'll see. — T Clark

What rule, exactly?

The truth is that most of us have already chosen sides. — Bitter Crank

Sides in what? It's a phoney war - pursued beyond all sense of reason. I'm not choosing sides in a phoney war. I despise politically correct activists, and yet continue to treat people as individuals regardless of skin colour or gender.

It is inconsiderate to ignore an explicit specification for the discussion clearly expressed in the original post. It's also against the rules of the forum. — T Clark

I disagree. I think seeking to proscribe the manner and scope of a discussion is bad form - which is why I brought attention to it. I have nothing to say about making peace with politically correct activists, but I can at least explain why I despise them - which is, in my view, a positive contribution to the overall discussion.

Utilitarianism is a kind of hedonism. It's a consequentialist altruistic hedonism. (This poll's two questions are about hedonism yes or no, and if yes, altruism yes or no; I'm not asking about consequentialism yes or not at this point). — Pfhorrest

Seems to me, you're asking the wrong questions on the basis of a misconception of morality and ethics. Morality is fundamentally a sense - innate to the human organism, and ethics are essentially, moral rules that reconcile individual behaviour to the social good.

This is why, I maintain, hedonism must either disregard the social good in the pursuit of individual pleasure - or claim that hedonism is a sufficient basis for the social good. (It isn't; as Socrates explains to Protagoras in Plato's dialogue of the same name.)

Once you start qualifying hedonism - it's not hedonism, because not all pursuit of the good is hedonistic. The greatest good for the greatest number is not hedonism. Take rationing food when adrift at sea, for example. Rationing seeks a utilitarian outcome, but it is in no sense hedonistic. The hedonist would eat all the food, for themselves, now - and not worry about other people or tomorrow. A utilitarian would ration the food equally, and make everyone unhappy.

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. — Pfhorrest

You complained in the OP about having to reference a text, and now you depend on it???

Ethical hedonism on Wikipedia (because apparently body text is required for a poll). — Pfhorrest

That's the entirety of your definition! Consequently, I feel quite free to express my own views on the subject - which begin with an evolutionary conception of morality as a sense, and ethical principles derived from that sense, to reconcile individual behaviour to the social good. Hedonism therefore, cannot be ethical. Hedonism must disregard the social good in pursuit of individual pleasure!

I'm going to completely ignore your appeal against taking sides; and acknowledge from the outset that I am vehemently opposed to political correctness. One problem with it - gone almost unnoticed, was exemplified by responses to the death of Sarah Everard.

There was a determination from the outset to make a politically correct "women's issue" of the case. At first, it was about women walking home late at night. But as the case unfolded, the professional complainers have been wrongfooted twice by the circumstances of the case.

I suspect they will be wrong again when all the circumstances are known. In much the same way that George Floyd created the circumstances in which he died, first by acting criminally, and secondly by violently resisting arrest, I imagine Sarah Everard too, played an active role in creating the circumstances in which she died.

That's not to say either of them deserved to die; but rather what has been shown is that there are politically correct activists, just waiting for a tragedy to adopt, to use to further their narrative. And how can that possibly be sincere? I think it's a self aggrandising, virtue signalling power game - and it's dangerous, not least in that facts are buried for the sake of the PC narrative.

That's an unusual definition then, and not the one this thread is about, an article about which I linked to in the OP. That definition is, shortly put, "what matters, morally speaking, is that people feel good rather than bad, experience pleasure rather than pain, enjoyment rather than suffering", — Pfhorrest

I keep trying to answer your post from 8 hours ago, but then something happens - like someone was responding right now, and I just couldn't get to it. Now I have things to do out in the world. So please don't take this personally, like some sort of snub. It's not that at all. I'll get back to you.

I see. What explains our innate susceptibility to deception of the kind that involves some degree of self-aggrandizement which I interpret as a, probably dangerous, proclivity on our part to build a world of sweet lies in which we happily live out our lives? — TheMadFool

The explanation is that the species evolves from ignorance into knowledge, and similarly the individual is born ignorant, and learns as they go along. What I think we have - or rather, what we had until the internet was invented, was a sort of intergenerational deliberate ignorance - that in my view, has severely retarded the development of humankind. It amazes me that not one parent had the courage to send their kid to school, to tell all the other kids that Santa isn't real. But now, I suspect, we have experienced the birth of a generation of parents who are not willing or able to lie to their children - because of the internet, and I suspect that can only be good for humankind.

It's not about never having been exposed to the truth as you seem to think. It's about not being able to face it. — TheMadFool

"Seem to think" is the right term. My understanding is more nuanced than my rough prose manages to convey. I suspect that the religious believer knows, that there are alternative possibilities to that which they choose to believe. They deliberately close their eyes and ears to those possibilities; but implicitly, they must know - or otherwise, it wouldn't be faith, it would be knowledge.

And one fine day, we come face to face with the bitter truth and our world, the one made of lies, comes crashing down around our ears. — TheMadFool

I don't think so. We may become extinct as a consequence of "our innate susceptibility to deception" - but having thought quite a lot about this, and having sought for many years to communicate the potential of adopting a scientific understanding of reality, the world isn't going to trip over the truth and fall into oblivion. I think the truth is coming, and we have to face it. Reality will not be brooked; we will be correct to reality or be rendered extinct, because that's the way the universe was Created!!!

1. All truths cause happiness

As counterexamples: disease, murder, apathy, corruption, rape, child labor, human trafficking, racism, slavery, discrimination, the list is longer but I'd like to see how you respond to these. — TheMadFool

This comes across as reductio ad absurdum, but I can only assume you are sincere - so by elimination, I must suppose you haven't understood my proposition; which is, rather - we'd be happier overall if we all just accepted a scientific understanding of reality, as opposed to the sweet little religious, political and economic lies called ideology.

My proposition is not:

"1. All truths cause happiness"

Instead, I'm trying to get to the disenchantment of someone led to believe wonderful, comforting things - that are almost certainly not true. How then can the believer greet the truth, but with fear, denial and disenchantment?

I merely suggest that if it were the practice to tell the truth from the beginning, people would not live in fear of disillusion, and would not have an antipathy to truth of the kind you express.

Not all truths are pleasant, no; but to me - someone who accepts a scientific understanding of reality, truths are what they are. For me, death of the individual is a necessary aspect of evolution; and the life of humankind is what really matters. For the believer, however, raised to expect eternal reward in the hereafter - death of the soul is a doubly terrible thing to contemplate.

From the perspective of traditional cultures, both the desire for pleasure and the fear of pain are natural instincts that have to be moderated. In Greek philosophy, the appetites were to be subdued by reason which Christian philosophy inherited and modified. In Buddhism, there is an icon of the pig, rooster and chicken chasing each other, signifying want (pig), hatred (snake), stupidity (chicken). I read the other day the definition of asceticism as 'the skilful use of discomfort'. — Wayfarer

We evolved in hunter gatherer tribes that then joined together to form societies and civilisations. In order for society to function; for hunter gatherer tribes to live together - it was necessary to make that implicit morality - explicit; and that's religion. God was employed as an absolute, objective authority - to justify ethics of behaviour that would apply equally to all. This wasn't quite Nietzsche's 'inversion of values' - the strong were not fooled by the weak, but rather tribal morality became social morality.

By my definition, hedonism requires the pursuit of my wants, regardless of anyone, or anything else
— counterpunch

I don't think it has to be necessarily that egocentric. I can imagine a hedonistic lifestyle that nevertheless makes room for other's wants. What if you were in a care-giving profession, like nursing or veterinary science, but after hours you were into BDSM? Not hard to imagine. — Wayfarer

I do think so; so maybe we're not talking about the quite same thing. I don't construe all pleasure as hedonistic. That slice of cake with your 11 o' clock cuppa is fine - unless, you're clinically obese and dependent on the state to fund your healthcare. Then, eating cake is hedonism, because - I believe, hedonism must necessarily deny the social responsibility required by religion, (law, economics, politics) or must argue that individual pleasure seeking is a sufficient condition for society.

BTW; all vets are into BDSM. They like to be led around on a leash, and spanked with a rolled up newspaper after work! Every single one of them!

The truth usually makes us sad (the bitter truth) and lies seem to be very good at making us happy (sweet, little lies) — TheMadFool

Truth is bitter. Why say that? — TheMadFool

Humankind evolves from ignorance into knowledge over time; and similarly, the individual is born knowing nothing. So in both cases, the lies come first. If the truth is bitter by comparison to the lie - the problem is the preceding lie; not the constant truth.

Any particular truth; that people die, for example - (Kierkegaard identifies death as particularly subject to denial) is but one facet of a holistic truth that offers considerable compensations.

For me, the individual dies but the human species lives on; and if we accepted that truth - we might feel like we belong to something, and start governing in the interests of the human species going forward, and that would be better for every individual.

Instead, I find myself dealing with my impending death, very much alone - to maintain the illusion for everyone else, as a member of a species that is headed for a premature demise, because it lives in a state of denial. The comforting lie has only compounded my sorrows.

I wonder why? I've always been bothered by the fact that happiness and truth are not linked in a way we would've wanted. The truth usually makes us sad (the bitter truth) and lies seem to be very good at making us happy (sweet, little lies) and yet both seem to command equal respect from us. We seek happiness and truth with equal fervor but I believe one reaches a certain point on the journey to acquire happiness and discover truths where one of them has to go; we have to choose one to the exclusion of the other, both can't be had, and the fact that this is a dilemma, a tough choice to make, suggests something, right? — TheMadFool

Interesting. I disagree. I think if we accepted truth wholeheartedly, we'd be much happier!

By my definition, hedonism requires the pursuit of my wants, regardless of anyone, or anything else. By your definition, anyone who isn't wearing barbed wire underpants is a hedonist. The satisfaction of needs and wants is not hedonism. I think you must be using the term colloquially, where you say:

UK, Europe, Australia, USA - are pretty hedonistic cultures overall. — Wayfarer

Colloquially, I'd agree, that western societies are wealthy enough to produce and sell pleasurable things, and are in that sense, hedonistic. But philosophically, I don't think that's what hedonism is - as an ethical system.

To my mind, as I said above, I think hedonism implies the abandonment of social responsibility - in favour of the individual desire for pleasure. The hedonist claims the pursuit of individual pleasure is a sufficient and rightful condition for society. I don't think so. I think society would collapse and people would be much less happy.

“Being happy” or otherwise not suffering is not synonymous with “doing whatever you want”. Hedonism is not necessarily extreme liberalism; consequentialist hedonism can be quite draconian in fact. — Pfhorrest

Consequentialist hedonism? If the individual is required to take into consideration what other people want; surely you've got something more akin to utilitarianism, than hedonism.

Alastair Crowley said: 'do what you want will be the whole of the law'?

Capitalism is not indiscriminate pleasure seeking. Capitalism is primarily, the production, distribution - and "sale" of goods. Taking a consumer eye view of capitalism, and disregarding the fact the consumer is also a worker; producing chairs all day long, so he can buy a table - so to speak, is less than half the story.

Capitalism begins with work that adds value to resources; which is to say, deferred satisfaction. Work is hard, and often unpleasant. The producer hopes to sell those goods - and so satisfy the wants of others, in order, ultimately, to satisfy his own wants - that's true, but he must first do what he doesn't want to do.

I'm at a loss to say what we have in developing nations. Problems, certainly - but is indiscriminate pleasure seeking one of them? Maybe!

Thing about Skinner is - he didn't believe in free will - or morality. He believed in positive and negative reinforcement, like we're all Pavlov's dogs, salivating to the sound of a bell. I can see why you'd hate that. I don't much like the idea myself.

My intuition suggests intuition is useless, because time as I experience it, is not what time actually is. Time is very strange. We can observe time dilation for fast-moving objects, and gravitational time dilation for objects caught in extreme gravitational fields. We then ask about the age of the universe! Even cross referencing stellar evolution, the cosmic microwave background and expansion - only gives us a relative measure of the age of the universe; relative to how time passes for us! But does time pass at the same rate for other objects in the universe? It seems unlikely to me, that the universe is of a uniform age! Consequently, I imagine, that if you could build a time machine, and travel back in time toward the big bang, you'd never get there. It would be like approaching the speed of light - only you'd get slower and slower, like a clock falling into a black hole!

In my view, hedonism cannot be an ethical principle because ethics reconcile individual behaviour to the social good. The social good would not served by the indiscriminate satisfaction of individual wants; indeed, the damage done to society by everyone doing whatever they want, would soon undermine individual happiness - so "consequentially" hedonism would be self defeating.

I am a modernist. Capitalism can still save itself; and continue to grow into the future. I just don't know if it will save itself; so it's difficult to orient oneself with regard to a belief in progress.

The potential is there: we have the knowledge, the technology, the industrial capacity, the skills, to plug into the planet for energy; use that energy to provide limitless clean electrical power, hydrogen fuel, capture and sequester carbon, desalinate and irrigate, recycle, and so on.

It is possible that the dream of modernity could be fulfilled; and the failure of modernity is too horrific to contemplate!

In face of the climate and ecological crisis, I say we go for it; meet the challenge head on and overcome it. The energy is there in the molten interior of the planet - more energy than we could ever put a dent in, no matter how lavishly it was spent to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.

Why? I can see the starting point of time and space as something that is "beginning at the fingertips". However, I'm not sure what the expression fully means. What does "adopting some absolotue promontory" mean? How would you expound on concepts like truth and justice, or determinism even? — Tombob

I suppose it depends upon what form your philosophy takes; mine is a narrative describing the evolutionary development of the human organism, civilisation and science, that aspires toward a prosperous sustainable future. I don't concern myself with the origin of life on earth, less yet the origins, and existence of the universe. From my point of view, the beginning of time is extremely distant and not particularly relevant to a middle ground scientific understanding of reality; which is, I'd suggest, the right starting point for philosophy.

The beginning of time is a superlative; an absolute that may be easy to imagine in some vague way, it's impossible to do so with certainty as to the absolute nature of reality, or consciousness, or any other such superlative imponderable. So why start with those? The idea of truth "starting at the fingertips" is meant to suggest knowledge developed over time, built from the bottom up. In the mean time; it's imperative, I believe - to acknowledge what we are and are not able to know.

I think that the origin and nature of the universe is a bad place for a philosophy to start. Valid knowledge begins at the fingertips, and builds from the bottom upwards and outwards. Adopting some absolute promontory - from which to look down on human beings, and expound on concepts like truth and justice, is just bad form.

It is hard to know if the various scientific observations could have brought us the technology to maintain civilisation because we are dealing with the unpredictable and with the whole practical and political management of resources. — Jack Cummins

Agreed. It's not possible to reconstruct the past 400 years with but one significant difference. There is only the one example: that which actually happened. Any alternate course of events is pure speculation.

No one a couple of years ago would have imagined the deep mess we are in presently amidst the pandemic. — Jack Cummins

Very few people anticipate global pandemics. That's true!

My battling selves have a war between the possibility of our time for transformation, or the other prospect that the worse is yet to come with many further waves of Covid_19, which could last for many years to come potentially. Science has provided the vaccines but will it be enough? — Jack Cummins

I have not yet proposed securing a prosperous, sustainable future as a cure for pandemic malaise; but coming out of this crisis, it might be just what the world is looking for. Tapping magma energy on the scale I envisage would be transformative; but I do not propose revolution. Rather, magma energy is the one thing we could and should do - precisely because it is the minimal amount of - the most beneficial kind of change, necessary to a sustainable future.

Attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side, by harnessing massive clean energy to power civilisation, sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle, makes much more sense than blaming the end consumer for impending ecological disaster.

I oppose approaches that make people the problem before even basic things have been done to supply their needs sustainably. Everything possible has not been done. Quite the opposite. Individual needs are problematic because technology is misapplied; and technology has been misapplied because, in my view - science has not been rendered its due. Do you not agree?

Even acknowledging we can't know how things would have turned out otherwise; indeed, asserting certainly that things could not have been, and were not otherwise than in fact they were, we are faced with an existential crisis, so it's reasonable to imply things aren't quite right. Scientifically and technologically, it is not necessary that we are faced with an existential crisis. So it's not difficult to infer what we have wrong.

The Dialogue of Selves is a means of exploring the existential difference, for two otherwise similar people, where one belongs to a species with a future by virtue of the recognition of science as 'truth' and a more rational application of technology. So I am in dialogue with myself from a world with a future. It could have happened. It's no more unlikely than civilisation is inherently improbable, in the sense that civilisation is anti-entropic. It's designed structure. It takes the expenditure of effort and energy to maintain a designed structure, and we need that energy to maintain and grow civilisation sustainably going forward. It could happen. It's a simple, rational scientific observation - that would surely have been acted upon had science been afforded the recognition it deserves. Don't you agree?

Your answer is the reason I started this discussion. Thank you. It means the world to me. — TaySan

Then you will indulge me to repeat this:

a world in which the truth value of scientific knowledge directs the application of technology to secure the greater good. — counterpunch

If you like my ideas, feel free to copy and share them.

Determinism vs scepticism. — javi2541997

Entropy versus the unlimited potential of imagination multiplied by energy.

I disagree with the principle contention. The idea that philosophy has failed to create a better world is false. We face challenges in the coming years; but it's been my philosophical purpose to show that it's possible to overcome those challenges. Scientifically and technologically it's well within the bounds of possibility to secure a long term prosperous and sustainable future - starting by tapping into the massive heat energy of the planet on a mega-industrial scale. Then we could sequester carbon industrially, desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture and habitation, recycle everything and continue to grow into the future - sustainably.

That so, we must conclude that neither capitalism nor over-population are the problem. The earth can support a large human population going forward given a rational application of technology. The population problem is a consequence of failing to apply the right technologies for the right reasons; which are a) the sum of scientific knowledge, and b) sustainability as a value; as might have ultimately transpired had the Church embraced Galileo, and embraced science as the means to decode the Creation.

That's not what happened. Science was deprived of recognition with accusations of heresy. Science has created a better world, nonetheless. We are surrounded by technological miracles. Technology is misapplied for the most part, but in its functionality there's a glimpse of a world that works - a world in which the truth value of scientific knowledge directs the application of technology to secure the greater good.

I half agree; — CallMeDirac

Then half my congratulations for partly recognising sense when you see it!

if youd read the post youd not be stating this. I explained exactly that. I support having a govt. — CallMeDirac

Oh. Okay. I must have misunderstood when you said:

Personally, as i've said, i am sympathetic to the anarchist movement — CallMeDirac

I just wanted to explain a little about anarchism; and why I think institutions are necessary, and necessary in what way to a prosperous and sustainable future. I am always writing about a prosperous and sustainable future. It's my thing! I apologise. I'm hijacking your thread. What's it about? Robbing little old ladies of their beliefs by force? Do you think that's necessary? Who cares what people believe? They're going to believe it anyway. I would argue that it is the scientific rationality of governments and industry in the application of technology that matters; and suggest this would serve as a measure of a legitimate governmental institution.

Government as a necessary evil, in face of a boat load of incoming evil. Exactly what I'm trying to convey.

I'm not optimistic. As a function of entropy, it is inherently unlikely humankind will survive. We need to do the right things to survive, and we are not doing those things. So, in that sense - governments are illegitimate, but at the same time, if there is any hope that the right things will be done, it will be by governmental and economic institutions; and in the meantime - life is not that bad! In scientific and technological terms it's not difficult; it's blindingly clear what we need to do - and the sooner the better; plug into the planet. Tap that virtually limitless source of high grade heat energy to keep things going, much the same as they are I expect, and it's almost as if, what do the petty corruptions of faceless bureaucrats matter? It matters a great deal if you take the anti-capitalist, anti-freedom, tax this, stop that, cycle to work and eat grass approach to sustainability. Then, corrupt government would really matter because they would be corrupt people with the moral authority to interfere in every aspect of industry and people's lives. That would be a disaster. Fortunately freedom can strike the winning blow; and apply the magma energy technology to afford our way of life.

Maybe what this comes down to in the end is a family that's not getting on; and that's a bit sad. My sympathy is somewhat dulled by the fact they are all so mightily privileged. I cannot deny an element of schadenfreude when I think they have family problems, just like any family; despite the fact they are so mightily privileged. Wealth no guarantee of happiness then? It makes my abject poverty so much easier to bear!

I stated I was only sympathetic to the abolishing of corrupt institutions. — CallMeDirac

Certainly we can agree that legitimate institutions are preferable. Perhaps anarchism seems wildly romantic until you ask, how would that work? How would people be fed, clothed and housed? How would food be produced and distributed? Maybe you just want to bring about the purge! Who knows? But corrupt institutions? Okay. Which one's are those? And who would legitimately take their place? You should consider what happened in Iraq after Saddam was removed; a brutal dictator - and danger to the region, no doubt, but his removal was almost worse than his rule.

I am forced to disagree with your assertion:

Climate change is the direct consequence of the industrial revolution, itself made possible by scientific, technological and economic developments, a historical process that demonstrably happened during a certain period (18-19th century) and in a certain place (Europe). It's not a problem caused by religion at all, but by capitalism and positivism. — Olivier5

Science was not afforded moral worth or authority by the religiously justified power structures of the time; indeed, quite the opposite. Science was branded heresy from the trial of Galileo onward, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution, science was cast as godless and learning discouraged among the peasantry as irreligious.

Consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in this context; the first in a long line of mad scientists portrayed in fiction. Science is under constant attack; and has been since Galileo. If science had the epistemic authority it deserves, for the amazing things it can do - and if science itself had any real input into the uses to which technology is put, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Science is devoid of authority by design. It's understandable, but it's a mistake. If we correct this error, we can claim the functional validity of science and technology to promote human and environmental welfare; recognise science as a 'truth' worthy of our respect, and so create a rationale for the application of technology, as suggested by science. In scientific terms, I believe the first, most advisable technology to apply is to harness the virtually limitless heat energy of the earth itself, to power human civilisation.

Everything comes down to energy, and we need lots more of it, not less - if the future is going to be worth living in. I don't want my future powered by some poxy windmill, now sadly neglected - creaking around for 28 years - and costing as much to decommission as it took to build; they will stand testament to the fact we tried, but never really understood what a scientific understanding of reality even looks like!