Economic growth does NOT require more cheap labor and it does not require more resources. For example, one ton of thorium can provide the energy of 10 million barrels of oil or 3.5 million tons of coal; and we have an inexhaustible supply of thorium. Cheap labor can be replaced with better machines. Transportation can be replaced with better communication. In short, the ultimate resource is human ingenuity.
We're using the very last of our precious resources - oil, minerals, land/soil, water - to fight senseless global conflicts instead of carefully rationing them for the transition to other, more sane ways of living.
These are truly scientific times. I believe that advanced machine automation will make such things as artificial photosynthesis and GaAs solar panels in such abundance that people will once again have jobs. But we all know that will not be allowed to happen...
The second part of the answer is taking responsibility for our ability to procreate and for the developing world to start treating women like human beings.
The solution is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal, has no pressurized core, does not require solid nuclear fuel and thus does lot create long lived actinides. This solution is meltdown proof, has ample fuel supplies (in the US too) and has already been demonstrated in the 1960's. It was not the way to make weapons so, unfortunately, the world passed it by. Now, there is every reason to drop all others and develop this (almost) perfect unlimited energy solution!
The answer is nano-solar - which according to all reliable sources and because of recent advances (just as Ray Kurzweil predicted!!) will be cheaper than thorium could ever dream in 5 to 10 years - before the commercial thorium PROTOTYPE is on line in China.
The second part of the nano-solar answer is recent amazing, paradigm shifting artificial photosynthesis via artificial leafs to store the energy produced by nano-solar.
Fossil fuel shortages are a major problem that will probably cause worldwide economic catastrophes and political unrest. However, saying that "growth is over" is ridiculous. Each person contributes less than they consume to this world. This is the cause of growth. Humans are creating wealth we pass on generation to generation. That is the cause of growth, and thats why it isn't over.
hypothesis, financial crisis is a symptom of impending peak oil etc, not just 'an independent problem'. Why a mortgage ponzi scam? because those in power wanted to fudge numbers to make it look like economies were growing, when infact they knew growth was no longer possible.
Perpetual growth economies like we are living in are known as "Keynesian Economies". Check out the Austrian School of Economics for a different, and fundamentally different model.
We can retain technology and civilization, but only if we end capitalism, and embrace some form of green socialism; if we don't, we will have nothing at all
Lol. Economic growth comes from increases in creativity, productivity, and specialization! It is not resource dependent. The economy will grow as long as we have the freedom to change and adapt to our heart's content. Sustainability is a virtue for robots!
corporate interests don't concern themselves with a sustainable future,they only care about increased share value for shareholders and profit dividends.executives are only interested in their compensation packages.they will drive the entire planet to annihilation as long as they can increase sales.I don't know where they think they will be able to enjoy those profits when the whole planet dies
I like it how people continue to look elsewhere for someone to blame for their lot in life. Oh its the Wall Street Bankers and their greed that ruin thins planet, not the Wii I just bought! Look to yourself first not outside.
Yes there is... But look inward first to see if you have cheated and stole first before blaming your own lot in life on some one else. if you work hard and are a good and descent person then you have a right to complain but there is to much blame placed on people just because they have more money. My neighbor has 4 cars and I have one, oh its my neighbors fault that I do not have an extra car.
@smujismuj It's governments that make life to be unfair. It's government enforced monopolies that perpetuate corruption in the corporate world. If you doubt that, think of the government enforced monopoly of the money supply. Also, think of why oil continues to be dominate in energy? It's the government that ensured the dominance of oil companies since they help to perpetuate one another. It's oil that fuels the weapons and militarism that keeps the American government dominant in the world.
@smujismuj You're right! Doesn't LLC mean "LIMITED Liability Corporation"? But this idea that government would somehow be free of corruption and a noble entity in the world if not for the banks / corporations seems to miss an important point. Sometimes people ask, 'without government, what would you do with all the psychopaths?" Firstly, I would not give them armies! It's government's monopoly on violence that attracts psychopaths into government, which makes government corruption inevitable.
@smujismuj I do agree with the solution you propose. To truly change the world one must first change one's self. To be the change you want to see in the world, but don't believe that political governments are somehow noble or desirable. They are the biggest polluters, the biggest murderers, the biggest thieves, the biggest liars, and the biggest dividers of peaceful humanity on planet Earth.
The school of economics is the foundation of an ignorant religion that deals with infinity. Infinite interests, infinite ressources. Thats the mind-set of economics. Pure absurdity due to lack of arithmetics. From an economists point of view the measure against oceans without fish is to buy bigger ships with bigger fishing nets.
I dont think we have just advanced to the point where we wont anymore thats pretty rediculous theres always more to study about everything around us. There are many unknowns in the universe.
@iloveicecreamandcake Yes there are a lot of unkonws in the universe. But what does this mean in context with what we know? We know precisely how much crop is grown with an error rate of a a few metric tons per anno. We have precise data about each and every crop field on this planet. And you're paying taxes for this knowledge. Satellites are for 70% engaged in agriculture analysis. The observation of the weather is a byproduct of this missions.
Alot of people frown on the US, and i can see why theres alot of curruption. It does have the potential to be a better place, I mean the system we had was decent untill people began changeing things for the worse, In the end you cant really control population growth if you think about it, and we will end up adapting, large cities everywhere with im sure interesting architecture, smaller more effecient cars or even more advanced ways of travelin no NOT TELEPORTING. THINK MORE POSTIVELY PEOPLE.
The answer is blowing in the wind: stop having so many babies. If the resources we now have were conferred upon fewer and fewer people then each generation would be better off than it's predecessors.
I do agree the USA has possibly seen its best day, but it is greed that has put us here and until we realize we are slaves to the Wall Street Bankers and the major corporations, who are controlling the world through manipulation at our own expense and stealing third world countries resouces while they live in poverty. What do you think it can't happen to us? Well look around it is here as we loose our homes, jobs, retirement and who do think created this debt that is bringing America down.
Someone scientifically minded would understand its foolish to expect we can match what we're used to in the industrial age - splurging through a pre-stored energy resevoir.
it is the basic process that is at fault - drawing down the earths capital , whilst the $-based accounting only tracks relationships between people.
[i understand there's a chance we might solve fusion or harvest offworld resources, but i'd hardly bet on it as inevitable]
Its a "Populist", not a "Scientist" who might promise 'the next energy source'. Perhaps a salesman trying to attract funding,or a politician who assures you everything will be better if you vote for him.
Talk to James Lovelock if you want to know what Science predicts we're in for ...
@shempship Progress is a word we civilized love to use. Marching towards progress or whatever that means is just that...a march without consideration for its consquences. Is it progress to destroy our land base with material goods we no longer use? I don't see catfish ruining the planet, it takes real intelligence to do that. DQ
It is impossible to bring the poor up to our level when "our level" requires the existence of a lower class to produce cheap goods and to over power for resources.
@shempship Progress is a word we civilized love to use. Marching towards progress or whatever that means is just that...a march without consideration for its consquences. Is it progress to destroy our land base with material goods we no longer use? I don't see catfish ruining the planet, it takes real intelligence to do that. DQ
It is impossible to bring the poor up to our level when "our level" requires the existence of a lower class to produce cheap goods and to over power for resources
@shempship I'm not suggesting that there is a black and white answer to the problem of increasing resource consumption. I'm simply wondering weather the third world significantly contributes to resource consumption, since you seemed from your original comment to blame everything on the third world. My opinion is that consumption is primarily a first world endeavor and has little to do with populations in these countries that use fractions of the per capita resources of the US.
@taostoner1 North America in general is an issue as a whole, look at the populations of both Canada and the US and look at the percentage of overweight individuals in both countries, and you'll see that is apart of the issue as well, alot of people in either country, or NA as a whole, take sustenance for granted, unlike other portions of the world who would kill for a loaf of bread, that we seemingly assume comes from an unending supply.
@shempship Hardly, you said that limiting third world population growth was key to limiting resource consumption, Which I don't see since it is the first world that uses a majority of the resources.
Totally agree with Jerry. We need to develop a new economic system based on sustainability. We need to confront issues such as population size & voters need to vote for politicians who propose workable sustainable policies. Most politicians promise endless economicv growth & say it can go on for ever...fools!
History is LITTERED with the failed predictions of scare-mongers like this.
He's just making money, he has to have something big to say.
It's the politics of fear, made possible by the instant sharing of information. Resist!
The crises that do hit are always poorly predicted -- so called 'experts' are guessing like everyone else, but pretending they know better than anyone else because they have an agenda.
BTW -- he can't really be called Jerry Mandering! LOL
Growth don't mean just industrial growth. Its like saying a person stops growing at 20. Growth in information is the same as in industry. If more people comsume media like music and movies, it's still growing the gdp of a country.
He is a stupid pessimist and has no faith in the free market. The Bloom Box blows him out of the water. Be very afraid of people like this. They want to control all resources and your lives. He wants to set up big government elites to control everything. Resist !
I don't understand what you find threatening about someone who's warning you about the fact that resources have a limit. He's not making this up, energy and minerals like we get with oil don't come out of thin air!
Do you even know what your magic bullet Bloom Box runs on?
Go ahead, keep telling yourself that the round planet is a conspiracy made up by the NWO.
The natural gas reserves in the US are actually growing; not shrinking. The Bloom Box runs on natural gas. Worldwide oil reserves are actually growing. The US has 8 times more shale oil than Saudi Arabia has crude oil. Next question, please...
You can't compare shale & crude oil 1:1. The EROEI of shale oil is very low, you have to mine tons of the stuff, and a huge energy cost to process useful yield from it! A better comparison would be how many net Btus each can provide. It's not 8 times.
Or is there another reason why the US stopped mining shale in the 80s and instead turned to oil imports?
Agreed, NG is definitely a better way but it's also non-renewable: that will start to run down when we all convert to it for electricity too.
TRUCK & CAT...I ran over a cat this morning smashing him the length of his slender body. He was reduced to a pelt. It was unintentional. Starting the engine gives warning to critters, but this time I decided to coast and catch it in gear. If only I hadn't changed my routine Bright Eyes would be playing with Tabby & Tinker Bell right now! I learned a valuable lesson: surprise is the key to cat-killing. Tomorrow I'll be ready.
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasnt the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" - Richard Dawkins (eugenicist)
If you live in a city and you think that its like that everywhere, buy a car and take a drive.
People have been saying that human folly will lead to the end of humanity for thousands of years now.
Things change. If oil/natural gas/reserves get lower they will eventually cost more until alternatives make economic sense and people use them instead. No central planning needed.
Eating meat will make sense until people learn how to digest grass.
The problem of our time is going to be how to survive with just what humans can make. The resources will soon be depleted, there will be a scramble for what is left, but in order to continue living prosperously, humans are going to have to come up with some drastically new ideas.
The world's crowded with people where there's money to be made. There have always been too many people sharing too little space in cities. Planet Earth can sustain many billions of people. The people, on the other hand, must dethrone the elitists/eugenicists who foment disharmony by embattling & enslaving them in perpetual warfare.
You should check the work of organizations such as FPCN and Survival International. People have been living very well close to the earth without industrial civilization teaching them how. In fact, if it is right that it is mass society that is unsustainable, than it is not a question of choice. The fact that a lot of people may die due to the collapse doesnt change anything. Decentralization would be our best path and ignoring these arguments would represent a bigger catastrophe.
The problem is it's oil that is harder and harder to get to making it more and more expensive til eventually there may be oil but it will no longer be worth getting.
Quality in food, health, and education can only be practiced amongst individuals with with freedom and democracy. Freedom and Democracy breed competition, competition breeds power, power breeds control. Control contradicts freedom and democracy.
Lets put it this way... nothing works.
If there is no end in number, there is no end in problem. we cannot control the cycle, we can only debate about it.
Growth without the addition of value is inflation. You see this in the quality of food around you, just over 1% growth rate (population per year) is not enough for a global food producing company so it squeezes out profits by trying to get people to eat cheaper food (e.g. less nutrition) in larger quantities for higher prizes. The prizes just need to be lower than on the quality stuff and bingo you have more than 1% growth selling food.
The external cost is loss of health and bad agriculture.
Nominal figures increasing without addition of value is inflation. I was referring to real growth, where value is added. This is possible within a world where resources are fully exploited and finite.
Your theory smacks of leftist ideology but is interesting. A phenomenon like that, in order to be uniform across the industry, would have to be centrally directed and would not result from spontaneous order. I believe that consumer tastes still determine food quality.
I don't really subscribe to leftist rightist ideologies but to a person who does I might lean there. As for consumer tastes I agree that eventually we'd choose truly practical food/goods but such rational behavior requires unbiased (e.g. true) knowledge guaranteed by unbiased education. Which we don't have it is for the most part centrally guided and generates the mindset being exploited. I hope you're right, that our true resource will be our minds, not the brute force ways of the past.
I think the market for consumer goods is one of the most democratic aspects of the modern world. Freedom and Democracy breed innovation. As long as government keeps its paws off we will adapt and innovate out of any resource crisis. Otherwise we are as doomed as this guy predicts
their is only one way to survive and we won't following the course we do now. IT is imperative to break away from the herd and embrace Nature - the commonality. dominion and the idea that we are above natures laws and other life forms is ludicrous. I see that in your statement. quit playing the games of control by govs, religions and corps and substitute with decentralizing everything. human beings are such a nasty lil life destroying species - aren't we? yeah, you too knucklehead.
There are enough resources Jerry, let's call them commodities. The problem is the they will be more expensive because of a lack of investment in the past 10/20 years. You have to be insane to invest in oil research when oil prices are 10 dollar per barrel. When they are 150 per barrel, things change Jerry. Welcome to world of capitalism with is magnificent pricing system!
Why is it that so many smart progressives seem so intent on ignoring technological advances that make "resource depletion" a non-issue? Clearly from his statements, Mr. Mander is politically motivated, profoundly blinkered, or both.
Don't get me wrong. I think the American Empire definitely has Titanic written all over it. That's not my point though. My point is that if humanity is going to get out of this debacle, it's going to have to be through preserving the best of our past to spur future ingenuity.
Many of our current efforts led on both sides of the aisle instead seem aimed at propping up the mistakes of the past to maintain the current status quo and concentrate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
I agree;But to believe in a last minute techno-fix as many stil do is dangerously deluded;James Kunstler refers to the rear view mentality of the political & economic ruling class as "the pyschology of previous investment" ;They'll waste billions of fossil fuel infrastucture whilst neglecting the Green new deal outlined by van jones amongst others ,which would at least face the future realistically.
The elite may try to artificially reduce the human population. I wouldn't be surprised if some deadly plague breaks out. Something comparable to the black death.
Or they could do nothing and our society suffers a Roman style collapse. We are damned either way.
Is it productive to consign yourself to defeat and trying to convince others that it is inevitable? There are many more non-elite than elite. Its this exact attitude that keep the majority on their knees. What I want to say in the politest way possible is, grow some balls.
Why is it "dangerously deluded"? Why do you assume that a bunch of pen pushing bureaucrats are going to somehow do a better job that the people who pulled us up out the Dark Ages and sent us to the moon? I'm not promoting hubris, I'm just asking that people look at what science has done already and look at what it's doing now. We're so used to some of these marvels that we've forgotten how amazing they really are and some of the stuff on the cutting edge now promises to be at least as big.
To the people offering their negative, all too clever comments; Really?!! What is so hard to understand that infinite growth is simply impossible with finite resources? This cannot be explained away with your liberal propaganda argument!
Inifinite economic growth is possible because technology continues to progress. Energy can be harnessed more efficiently and materials recombined into more productive forms. The people who play up this kind of crisis typically have one hand held out for donations and the other to take new taxes.
Ha ha. Try again. Perhaps this time, with facts. Weak. This is simply fucking ridiculous. Infinite economic growth? Get real. On a basic level, infinite economic growth would depend on infinite population increase which, once again, is not possible. No increase in consumption, no increase in economy. Can I make it any simpler for you?
Infinite economic growth does not require infinite increase in population if the existing population increases its consumption. "Consumption" does not have to be material consumption. The music industry creates a very vibrant economy selling performances and digital data. Technology allows us to produce more such intangible goods of ever higher quality. If you would like more facts and examples, please let me know.
How do you define infinite? Your examples don't quite explain how you find this possible. Consumption, especially in a technology reliant society always relies on material. How is digital music stored? How many ipods do you think are disposed of every year. I'm perfectly aware of the technotopian facts you speak of and they simply are not the answer. If you would like more facts and examples. Please let me know. I apologize for my earlier message. I wouldn't mind some healthy debate on this.
I use "infinite" in the common sense of "unlimited". Society always relies on material, but it does not necessarily rely on larger amounts of it (though larger amounts do make it easier). Digital music is stored on silicon. Most of the earth is made of silicon. The rest is easily made from metals such as recyclable aluminum. I don't want to give the idea that technology is a panacea; it is often used irresponsibly. However, progress lies in new ideas, not in Neo-Feudalism.
Technologies continue to fall in price. A $2000 dollar computer from 3 years ago costs less than $300 today. People at the time of the American revolution were lucky to have forks and spoons. Today the average person can easily take transcontinental flights. Technology moves much more quickly than most realize and it's accelerating all the time.
Most people don't want to know the truth. They believe what they want to believe. Who wants to be told that they can only have one child? Who wants to be told how much they can consume? People regard these things as their rights, and will fight tooth and nail against any regulations to restrict those rights.
The system will break down, our empire will crumble, and a lot of people are going to die. This has happened before, just not on a global scale.
I'm not sure that pessimism is very helpful. Of course, being realistic is important, but we needn't accept a fatalistic vision of the future. If you believe in freedom and society, don't hole yourself up in a little bunker. Go out and find other people that feel the same way. Figure out ways to secure property and trade in your own local community. You have plenty of talented trustworthy neighbors without bothering with Washington.
I have met many very smart people and talked to them about serious issues. Many are pessimistic about the future right now, but they give similar advise as what I just gave. You don't have to accept that advice, but it'd be well worth your time to give it some thought.
Hasatum, I am not against technology. I fully support funding scientific research. But their is no technology that can make running out of resources a non issue. Unless you can find a way to pull resources out of a hat, I don't know how you can go on saying that. Our society was designed to run on cheap energy. Take away the cheap energy, bad things happen.
We are surrounded in energy. We're swimming in it. We got enough geothermal energy for centuries. Enough nuclear energy for at least 1 century. Clean coal isn't really clean, but it's cheap as dirt and we've got enough of that for centuries. We've got enough natural gas to get us by for who knows how long. Any one of these by itself is a potential solution. Taken together they're more than enough. Right now we just lack infrastructure and investment.
But you were just saying don't hole yourself up, and now you're counting resources, amounts, weighing the benefits.Lets not think about getting by for centuries, that's not important at all, that's the problem. Our civilization and "dependency" on technology is like a drug but nobody admits it. We just silently agree that without it we would easily die.
Did you read my post before responding? I said we have more than enough energy to last us for centuries. Without new technologies to tap into these new resources, wealth will continue to fall into the hands of privileged few and millions or even billions will die of easily preventable disease and starvation. I personally am not interested in living in a world of neo-feudalism and you better believe that's just what we'll get if we don't keep ahead of the curve.
The problem is that we feel dependent on technology; sure your lifestyle may "require" it now but we have a responsibility as supposedly intelligent sentient to decide between what we really need and what will eventually harm us, this is VERY BASIC. The "privileged" few will always keep us in the dark about dangers as long as we see them as privileged, as long as we buy their shit. Life could be a cycle, but the idea "the curve" to keep ahead of puts you in a linear graph.
It's not just our lifestyles that depend on progress. If progress stops, the economy fails. If the economy fails (as it might) millions in the developing world will die for a multitude of different reasons. Many thousands have already died as a result of our current economic crisis.
It is those people who live in poverty that now depend most on technological innovation, so I don't see how trying to live more like the developing world is supposed to help anyone.
therein lies more dominion and the fact remains - fact - we must come to terms that we are not so special and cannot be. far less people and an understanding of our place in the biodiversity of the planet would be a good start but...that would not sit well with the heirarchys that we follow and who rule - government, religion and now the corporations. we must quit fostering them and quit playing their game - you're feeding into their control of you too. just a start but the machine is powerful
If Nature could be selective in deleting a species she could take out ONLY ignorance like yours. Instead we all suffer - thanks dipshit . but I'm going out in style and with a lil humor. U - stale, boring and totally uncreative - believing only in what your mind has been programmed to.its sad tho, in that every human malady - pers. and social etc. - could be remedied thru alignment with Nature - dumping the man made shit. Dominion - wow! you had your chance - its MY turn. Yeehaw!
quit playing quit trying to incorporate your personal beliefs into the same systemsin which they were developed in. PEople are s'pose to die but not at the hands of the priviledged few - humans must drop dominion, quit following these heirarchies and adopt an alliance with a commonality - Nature. all else is futile.
You're wading in pretty deep and YouTube comments really aren't the best place for philosophical debates, but I'd stress two points.
First: humans are a part of Nature, so everything we do, including evil things, are natural. That doesn't mean we should condone evil, but neither should we kid ourselves about the righteousness of the natural world.
Second: we are special. If you haven't figured out that a human life is worth more than than of a flatworm, then you've got some living to do.
It is not necessary to define "good" or "special". These are kindergarten words. We can wax philosophical about their precise implications for special instances, but here pretty much any ordinary definition will do.
Let's put it this way, we are special enough that If you had the choice between running down a child or a flatworm with your car and you were to choose the child, you would not be good, you would be a monster. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've really lost touch.
The problem is that no one here claims that it would be better to kill a child than a flatworm. So, again, to classify man as special, in this context, is pointless. I know a child has a meaning for the words "good" and "special". I have seen them use it. The problem is that you did not.
I believe that sort of discourse can be dangerous. The way it is meant to define the value of species from a universal and static point of view. Of course man will preserve its view on life and step on worms. Does that make him 'special'? Is a lion at fault when he values himself over a human? I believe that the moment we start treating worms as accessory and worthless, we are in danger of becoming what we described. The problem of sustainability we are facing is directly link to that culture.
1) We can image creatures more magnificent than humans. We can imagine them having such value, that even good humans would consider it more important to protect one of these creatures than another human. We can do this because we are rational. Lions cannot.
2) If you can understand a child's use of "good" and "special", then you can surely understand mine.
3) No one is arguing that worms are worthless.
For more arguments on sustainability, see my other posts in this thread.
I would sure be happy to hear about that imaginary creature who's thought a lion could not offer me. You classify that ability as "rational", but of course we already know that you can play games with humans that you cannot with a lion. That is a tautology that says nothing about men and lions. I still don't understand how that makes humans "special" in the big hierarchy of life.
Can you please sum up for me what you think about what authors such as Jerry Mander are saying.
A lion isn't going to give you any consideration because it isn't going to be able to consider you abstractly the way a human would be able to consider another creature. That is a difference. There is no tautology. The fact that humans are capable of thinking about ethics and lions are not is a significant distinction. There's good reason to think that a world without rational, ethical creatures is lacking in a way that a world without some particular animal isn't. See above for a summary.
You are saying that a lion does not possess the human values of a human, because he is not a human. That is a tautology. Your post just describes what I said before, which is that we all already know that you can play games with humans that you cant with lions. Those romantic expressions about ethics and abstract thinking just reinforce your notions about man being special, within our anthropocentric culture. You are really not saying anything.
It is not a tautology. Humans are rational and rationality is valuable. Any creature that possesses rationality is valuable. Lions do not possess rationality. This doesn't mean they are valueless, but they are limited to the value of their other attributes.
If you cannot agree that rationality is something worth valuing more than the attributes of a lion, then you are almost certainly irrational and not worth talking to.
Moreover, ethics has nothing to do with romanticism. If you do not believe that ethics are important, then you are immoral and as such are worse off than a lion who is merely amoral.
My argument has nothing to do with an "anthropocentric culture". It has to do with one deciding to either admit that reason is important or stop pretending to be reasonable.
You should look the word "romanticism" in a dictionary. I didn't say that ethics are not important. You should lose that sensationalist tone of owning human values. I was talking about your embellishment of a description that I had already addressed, in the context of seeking what value it had for the discussion at hand.
When you put the definition of reason in those terms, you are making a vague statement to which no one can deny, but that it is of no real meaning.
I am not speaking primarily from a romantic tradition nor did I claim to; I'm speaking from plain reason. How is it sensationalist when I point out that that you seem to be disowning human values? I've made very direct statements that should be easily comprehensible to any fluent speaker of English. The fact is that you have disarmed yourself by abandoning the primacy of reason. Without accepting it, how are mere unsupported opinions supposed to convince anyone of anything?
The problem for me concerns precisely the fact that I have a hard time in understanding your description of man. Its hard to see any objectivity in the classifications you made. I don't see how I have abandoned reason by any definition.
About the romantic reference, I wasnt aware that you were using any tradition at all. I used that expression and you seemed to raise a problem for which I tried to respond. That is all. I dont know if you have any doubts about that or not.
Do you agree or disagree that reason has value? If you agree, then humans have value that animals do not. If you disagree, then you're irrational and the conversation is finished.
I'm not interested in romanticism. I merely clarified a point which you seem to insist on bringing up.
So, you are saying that there is a definition for reason that is unquestionably found in men and not in animals. I know they teach that man is a "rational animal" in kinder garden, but there is no consensus whatsoever that such statement is a self-evident truth.
All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this - Bertrand Russell
You are not even discussing rationality. You are just throwing a label that you were taught to repeat over and over in school.
Russell was saying that he could not find evidence that people behave rationally. That is quite different from saying whether or not we are capable of employing reason at all.
As for defining reason, choose whatever common definition you like. Without the ability to accumulate reason through culture, a brute is indeed more similar in value to that of an animal. With it, we can go to the moon and populate the stars. The difference is qualitative and significant.
The full quote concerns the category "rational animal". What you said about being capable to behave rationally is within the scope of such debate. Now, how can I agree to apply a category whose definition is not clear and opened to debate? Suggesting that I should choose whatever I like seems absurd. Also, are you now going to argue that populating the stars is a good thing as another self-evident truth? I can give you a list of authors who disagree. Are they irrational like animals too?
Nope. The fact that we are capable of reason and sometimes employ it is relevant. You tacitly agree that we can do so by entering into debate in the first place. If you feel that reason is not at least instrumentally valuable, I wonder why you bother?
By saying "you choose" I'm saying that I am willing to defend any definition of reason that you hold up. It doesn't matter. Virtually any one of them will exist in humans to a degree that is qualitatively different from that of all other animals.
Nope? But that is exactly what I said. The fact that we show signs that we are using our reason or not is relevant to understand what it means to classify men in a certain way. Now, you should read Russel. Like him, there are hundred more. I just gave an example for something you claimed to be self-evident.
Again, if you insist in talking about categories and values in such loose terms, you end up with a useless fallacy. Men are men. Lions are not men. Nothing can be more men then men
I have read Russell. So what? Are you able to directly answer any of my arguments or will you continue to evade? There is no fallacy. I've insisted on nothing. I've used regular everyday language and dared you to find a definition of it that I cannot defend. I'm not talking about men or women. I'm talking about the fact that reason has value. Do you deny it? Yes or no?
I am not evading anything. Point out to me an argument that I have not addressed. I already told you that such question is meaningless. You define those two concepts by one another. Your fallacy of false dichotomy is a problem of your own. I am not at fault by not answering - yes or no.
Wow. In one breath you claim to answer all my questions and in the next you refuse to do so. Brilliant! False dichotomy? I asked whether reason is valuable or not. There is no dichotomy. What part of the question didn't you understand? It's true or false not apples or oranges.
How is - "meaningless" - not an answer? How did I refused to answer your question? I clearly explained to you why - yes or no - represent a fallacy in that context, known as a false dichotomy. What more can I say?
Meaningless? Essentially the argument boils down to "Should animals be treated as equals?" This is an ethical question. You've steered clear of answering whether ethics is valuable, though you shied away from being called immoral. Clearly you feel that acting ethically is important. Next you engage in a lengthy philosophical debate. Clearly you feel that reason is important. Now you claim that attributing value to reason is meaningless? What? Shall I then launch into a volley of absurdity?
I didn't say that attributing value to reason is meaningless. You are using the word in different contexts and then synthesizing the conclusions. That is a basic formula for a fallacy. I said that the question "Does reason has value" on its own is meaningless in terms of reaching a valid conclusion. Reason is defined, among other things, as a value. For you to make an universal claim about its meaning, you have to be clear on the extension of what you are discussing.
I think I understand the math that you are trying to do. Reason has value, men have reason, men have value that animals do not. Silly conclusions that go nowhere. If if you agree that there is something that men has that other animals don't, you are left without any consideration on the extent of such category. Is pontless, considering that no one is arguing for the universal claim "Men is the same as lion".
I would say that we all want to be reasonable, or use the term reason as a value one time or another. That doesn't mean that someone who professes to be anti-rationalism is someone who is pro-stupidty and anti-winning debates. It's a question of definition. And defining language presents its own challenges.
I have always found odd these yes or no questions in a debate
Is Einstein smarter than Madonna? What is smart? Well, are you evading the question? Clearly one has been found to have higher IQ than the other. But if you already defined smarter from the beginning, you just answered your own question. The problem is that there isn't a consensus about IQ reflecting smartness. So, it's just not a good way to discuss this topic if you aren't just looking to entrap someone in a debate by semantics.
I'm not talking about artificial terms like IQ. I'm talking about value. I'm not asking you to give me an ordinal value ranking the value of different objects. I'm asking whether reason has value or not. When one asks, "Does gold have value?" The answer is not "meaningless", it's "yes". To argue that gold is not valuable to dogs or drowning men is to be pedantic to the point of absurdity. Perhaps now you'd like to argue over the meaning of "value"? Sometimes "yes" or "no" really is the answer.
I'm not arguing whether humans are the same as lions. I'm arguing that we needn't treat other animals as equals. I"m arguing that a world without humans is lacking in a way that a world without lions is not. I'm not making a category error.
I am arguing that:
1) The existence of reason (culture, ethics, etc.) has value.
2) Reason exists because humans exist, not because lions exist.
3) Humans have value that lions do not.
The logic is valid so you must deny the premises. Do you?
I don't think you understood the point about IQ. This has got nothing to do with being measured or not. The question about the value of gold is actually quite aburd too, unless you are having a discussion in economics that is fully in context. You can actually discuss the value of gold beyond yes or no. I have seen books about it. So, I think that very example you gave is good about why I think you are trying to drag me on to this tautological statements to reinforce your views on the wolrd
You are arguing that we needn't treat other animals as equals? Well, I wouldn't invite a lion to be a member of a city council. Does that bring us closer in our dicussion?
I really don't want to be evading the question here, but I honestly think that the statement "ethics have value" is absurd, for the reasons I have explained. I have never really heard anyone defend what you are saying other than priests giving a speech about men being something between animals and angels, and making statements very close to the ones you made.
You've never heard anyone argue that a human is more valuable than an animal? Seriously? Are you joking? And yes you are either evading or being willfully dense. A world without ethics would be one that is quite different from the one we have today. I suggest that it would be a much worse one. Do you disagree?
Since you are talking about ethics and have already passed judgment about my morality, I have to say that, even though you may think that this for me is only a discussion about language and philosophy, I believe that some of the things you said lead to immoral deeds.
All that talk about reason as an ability and desire to populate the stars, not only is opens questions about sustainability and the relative value to our purpose, but has in fact been used as a justification to wipe out entire groups of peoples whose culture does not involve such goals. This reality is very well documented by organizations such as Survival International and the FPCN.
Another issue is the treatment of animals. As I have told you, I don't know exactly what you mean by reason. You speak of a sense of ethics associated with reason. Do you suppose that animals have no ethics? Maybe you are not sensible enough to what an animal can be. Some scientists have indeed concluded that animals have shown to possess a sense of right and wrong. This obviously opens a problem to where you draw the line between animals and humans. I provide source in next post.
Just google earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong Furthermore, it's not clear about what you understand to be an animal, when, for example, one thinks of close related monkeys. And it's not only the chimpanzee, but other branches of Great apes. They can have smaller brains than ours (like the Homo ergaster) or bigger brains than ours (like the Neanderthal). Exactly what makes our own "special"?
We have also discussed reason associated with communication. Obviously a lion cannot understand you like another human being can, but the same is true between any other two species. Well, I remember a scientist claiming that ETs would not contact us but a orca whale species. Aside from the strange remark, it was interesting to hear him explain how their language system is much more complex than ours. Dolphins are also known to have more complex brain parts than ours, with close bodybrain ratio
The fact is that it's hard to judge what is going on in the animal world. These are just some facts that may shock some people in thinking human reality in its own terms. With having the mistake of giving the romantic follow trough that I was telling you about earlier, I would say that the more I look into animals, the more I feel that humans are special because they are unique and not because they are superior.
I didn't want to get personal, but, since you are talking about saving face and end discussions, I have to say that it's hard to me to fuel a discussion with someone who discusses concepts in such an infantile manner. Your impressions on men superiority are cliché and discussed in a way that in terms of logic just goes round and round. I gave the IQ example to make a statement about a yes or no question going wrong, and you made an analogy with the discussion we were having where there is none.
What kind of answer are you looking for? A description of specific neuronal structures? Again, I'd warn that you not get too focused on the biology or even the brain. Virtually everything that makes us human is the fact that we augment ourselves: through tools, through language, through culture. The language of dolphins is sophisticated because it's communicating a lot of geospatial information. That's interesting but less significant than what we do.
Again and again, you just throw you cliche impressions and ignore what others (namely "rational" authors) are saying. The fact is that the orc whales, for example, have been described as having a culture. Like that, there are millions of other examples. So, it's not a question of we augmenting ourselves within our own culture, and not biology, that is just your momentary, unsupported school theory
What you said about misuse of reason and technology is just your eurocentric, racist view of the world in support of the notion that industrial civilization is a consequence of evolutionary biology. For the sake of the discussion we are having, its enough for me to say that such conclusion is clearly not self evident. For example, google "progress can kill" for first result to see why I believe your position is the one that is unfounded and leads to unethical behaviour
LOL. My wife is Japanese. I'm American. I'm a racist? I've lived in Thailand. I know what Nature looks like and I know what poverty looks like. I also happen to know that if we were to every decide that progress and technology wasn't worth the effort, billions of people would die. Most of them would not be Europeans or Americans. Who then is the real racist? Are you so worried about lions and flatworms that you're willing to let the world die of famine and disease? Shame on you.
So, your wife is Japonese, so I guess you are free to say things like "african culture is poor and old". Nobody can say your views are based on a racist culture, right? And thank you for the lesson on youtube. As a luddite, I never thought about computers being ''technological''. You could perhaps learn more if you hadnt such a dishonest attitude in debates. It has got nothing to do with thinking of being superior and smarter, but I am usually more inquisitive about other peoples beliefs.
What are you talking about? I'm saying that technological progress is necessary if starvation is to be avoided in Africa and you're talking about culture?
If you have accepted that YouTube is a product of technology then perhaps you've started to understand that technology is something that can help people regardless of their culture.
I'm curious as to why you consider my attitude to be dishonest. Perhaps you can provide a specific example?
I am well aware of studies of behavior in animals that is both ethical and unethical. This doesn't necessarily say anything about their ability to engage in ethics. If you focus to narrowly on the biological, you will miss the fact that a great part of human consciousness is the result of participation in a larger culture. This results in differences that are exponential and qualitatively different from what is found in the rest of the animal world.
I think I've addressed the role of technology for sustainability in my previous posts. The fact that some people misuse reason is tragic but irrelevant to the issue.
No it doesn't. My point has real implications. Your example is a joke and not a very funny one at that. Clearly you're looking for a way to end this discussion while saving face. Don't bother. You need to reevaluate your views on the matter. "Lions are less valuable to humans" may be a very general statement that can be misinterpreted, but it is basically true. Talk about "anthropocentrism" is misguided when it is used as a ploy to play down the importance of reason and technological advance.
I did understand you point about IQ and I don't think that you do. The point about gold is not absurd. You can have a discussion about gold beyond yes or no. And? I"ve said before, there's no tautology. There's not category error. I'm not enforcing anything. I'm asking a direct question using words with well understood meaning. "Existence", "reason", "have", and "value" all have non-controversial meaning.
"And?" is precisely my question. You gave the gold example and I told you why your question on value is not like asking the value of gold in a practical situation.
If you are going to discuss technological advancement from a sociological and philosophical point of view, you should read some books on the subject. Because it's not an evident truth, as you seem to suggest, that building bridges and towers are good and destined for men's capabilities.
TECHNOLOGY WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS
matchbox555 1 month ago
Economic growth does NOT require more cheap labor and it does not require more resources. For example, one ton of thorium can provide the energy of 10 million barrels of oil or 3.5 million tons of coal; and we have an inexhaustible supply of thorium. Cheap labor can be replaced with better machines. Transportation can be replaced with better communication. In short, the ultimate resource is human ingenuity.
bogusnachos 3 months ago
He'll be eating his words.
Esoparagon 4 months ago
We're using the very last of our precious resources - oil, minerals, land/soil, water - to fight senseless global conflicts instead of carefully rationing them for the transition to other, more sane ways of living.
PeaceLoveGoddess 6 months ago
These are truly scientific times. I believe that advanced machine automation will make such things as artificial photosynthesis and GaAs solar panels in such abundance that people will once again have jobs. But we all know that will not be allowed to happen...
fireofenergy 6 months ago
The second part of the answer is taking responsibility for our ability to procreate and for the developing world to start treating women like human beings.
BeondaPale 6 months ago
LFTR
The solution is 1,000,000 times as energy dense as coal, has no pressurized core, does not require solid nuclear fuel and thus does lot create long lived actinides. This solution is meltdown proof, has ample fuel supplies (in the US too) and has already been demonstrated in the 1960's. It was not the way to make weapons so, unfortunately, the world passed it by. Now, there is every reason to drop all others and develop this (almost) perfect unlimited energy solution!
LFTR and MSR
fireofenergy 7 months ago
@fireofenergy
The answer is nano-solar - which according to all reliable sources and because of recent advances (just as Ray Kurzweil predicted!!) will be cheaper than thorium could ever dream in 5 to 10 years - before the commercial thorium PROTOTYPE is on line in China.
The second part of the nano-solar answer is recent amazing, paradigm shifting artificial photosynthesis via artificial leafs to store the energy produced by nano-solar.
The sun is the TRULY perfect energy source
BeondaPale 6 months ago
Fossil fuel shortages are a major problem that will probably cause worldwide economic catastrophes and political unrest. However, saying that "growth is over" is ridiculous. Each person contributes less than they consume to this world. This is the cause of growth. Humans are creating wealth we pass on generation to generation. That is the cause of growth, and thats why it isn't over.
frencheneesz 8 months ago
hypothesis, financial crisis is a symptom of impending peak oil etc, not just 'an independent problem'. Why a mortgage ponzi scam? because those in power wanted to fudge numbers to make it look like economies were growing, when infact they knew growth was no longer possible.
walter0bz 8 months ago
china and india will keep growing.
JohnF30Music 8 months ago
@JohnF30Music .... until the oil runs out, then we're all in for hell
walter0bz 8 months ago
Perpetual growth economies like we are living in are known as "Keynesian Economies". Check out the Austrian School of Economics for a different, and fundamentally different model.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
this guy is phrasing an objective truth very well. WHY do people dislike him? if someone can give me a thoughtful answer, I would appreciate that.
bocckoka 10 months ago
We can retain technology and civilization, but only if we end capitalism, and embrace some form of green socialism; if we don't, we will have nothing at all
niriop 11 months ago
Lol. Economic growth comes from increases in creativity, productivity, and specialization! It is not resource dependent. The economy will grow as long as we have the freedom to change and adapt to our heart's content. Sustainability is a virtue for robots!
ogscott 11 months ago
Who gives a shit? Let's trash this place and find another planet? Yahooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
spactick 1 year ago
Precisely why we need to subsidize solar energy and build a shitload of wind farms. It only makes sense.
TwigDjango 1 year ago
corporate interests don't concern themselves with a sustainable future,they only care about increased share value for shareholders and profit dividends.executives are only interested in their compensation packages.they will drive the entire planet to annihilation as long as they can increase sales.I don't know where they think they will be able to enjoy those profits when the whole planet dies
jahmobile 1 year ago 2
capitalism is a runaway train, and the bridge ahead has collapsed.
smujismuj 1 year ago
@smujismuj you can say that again twice.
OUTOFGAS88 10 months ago
I like it how people continue to look elsewhere for someone to blame for their lot in life. Oh its the Wall Street Bankers and their greed that ruin thins planet, not the Wii I just bought! Look to yourself first not outside.
Totorohat 1 year ago
@Totorohat
There's a difference between wanting to live comfortably and willingly cheating and stealing.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme.
smujismuj 10 months ago
@smujismuj
Yes there is... But look inward first to see if you have cheated and stole first before blaming your own lot in life on some one else. if you work hard and are a good and descent person then you have a right to complain but there is to much blame placed on people just because they have more money. My neighbor has 4 cars and I have one, oh its my neighbors fault that I do not have an extra car.
Totorohat 10 months ago
@Totorohat
Life isn't fair, government should be.
The economic system should be fair and it should be simple.
The stock market and corporate partnerships are clearly corrupt.
If you doubt that, consider how our campaigns are funded and how reform is treated like a plague.
It is truly astounding how the filthiest of the filthy rich con their devotees into perpetuating the myths of market ideology.
And I "look inward" plenty. No one is more critical of me than I am.
smujismuj 10 months ago
@smujismuj It's governments that make life to be unfair. It's government enforced monopolies that perpetuate corruption in the corporate world. If you doubt that, think of the government enforced monopoly of the money supply. Also, think of why oil continues to be dominate in energy? It's the government that ensured the dominance of oil companies since they help to perpetuate one another. It's oil that fuels the weapons and militarism that keeps the American government dominant in the world.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
@repfreedomforce
I mostly agree,
with this caveat:
It is 'corrupted' government that makes life unfair, government corrupted by
business/banking/war-mongering/military-industrial-complex.
The corporate partnerships are what has corrupted the gov.
Corporations should be TEMPORARY entities that address unusual situations.
They should disappear once the situation is over.
smujismuj 10 months ago
@smujismuj You're right! Doesn't LLC mean "LIMITED Liability Corporation"? But this idea that government would somehow be free of corruption and a noble entity in the world if not for the banks / corporations seems to miss an important point. Sometimes people ask, 'without government, what would you do with all the psychopaths?" Firstly, I would not give them armies! It's government's monopoly on violence that attracts psychopaths into government, which makes government corruption inevitable.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
@smujismuj I do agree with the solution you propose. To truly change the world one must first change one's self. To be the change you want to see in the world, but don't believe that political governments are somehow noble or desirable. They are the biggest polluters, the biggest murderers, the biggest thieves, the biggest liars, and the biggest dividers of peaceful humanity on planet Earth.
repfreedomforce 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For more on this issue watch "overconsumpulation-Overpopulation is NOT a myth" or "how many people can live on Planet Earth".
checkyoursources 1 year ago
The school of economics is the foundation of an ignorant religion that deals with infinity. Infinite interests, infinite ressources. Thats the mind-set of economics. Pure absurdity due to lack of arithmetics. From an economists point of view the measure against oceans without fish is to buy bigger ships with bigger fishing nets.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
I dont think we have just advanced to the point where we wont anymore thats pretty rediculous theres always more to study about everything around us. There are many unknowns in the universe.
iloveicecreamandcake 1 year ago
@iloveicecreamandcake Yes there are a lot of unkonws in the universe. But what does this mean in context with what we know? We know precisely how much crop is grown with an error rate of a a few metric tons per anno. We have precise data about each and every crop field on this planet. And you're paying taxes for this knowledge. Satellites are for 70% engaged in agriculture analysis. The observation of the weather is a byproduct of this missions.
MillyVanillification 1 year ago
Alot of people frown on the US, and i can see why theres alot of curruption. It does have the potential to be a better place, I mean the system we had was decent untill people began changeing things for the worse, In the end you cant really control population growth if you think about it, and we will end up adapting, large cities everywhere with im sure interesting architecture, smaller more effecient cars or even more advanced ways of travelin no NOT TELEPORTING. THINK MORE POSTIVELY PEOPLE.
iloveicecreamandcake 1 year ago
The answer is blowing in the wind: stop having so many babies. If the resources we now have were conferred upon fewer and fewer people then each generation would be better off than it's predecessors.
Fuliginosus 1 year ago
I do agree the USA has possibly seen its best day, but it is greed that has put us here and until we realize we are slaves to the Wall Street Bankers and the major corporations, who are controlling the world through manipulation at our own expense and stealing third world countries resouces while they live in poverty. What do you think it can't happen to us? Well look around it is here as we loose our homes, jobs, retirement and who do think created this debt that is bringing America down.
dillionlurue1975 1 year ago
Malthusian Twaddle.
sidspop 1 year ago
We had a nice run. But it's time to go back to basics. Tribal societies anyone?
HigherPlanes 1 year ago 23
@HigherPlanes
No, thank you. You can go live in a hut, but science will instead work on the next energy source.
jursamaj 10 months ago
@jursamaj -
Someone scientifically minded would understand its foolish to expect we can match what we're used to in the industrial age - splurging through a pre-stored energy resevoir.
it is the basic process that is at fault - drawing down the earths capital , whilst the $-based accounting only tracks relationships between people.
[i understand there's a chance we might solve fusion or harvest offworld resources, but i'd hardly bet on it as inevitable]
walter0bz 8 months ago
@jursamaj -
Its a "Populist", not a "Scientist" who might promise 'the next energy source'. Perhaps a salesman trying to attract funding,or a politician who assures you everything will be better if you vote for him.
Talk to James Lovelock if you want to know what Science predicts we're in for ...
walter0bz 8 months ago
@HigherPlanes its far more efficient, effective, and superior in every way.
Hawaiianstile 10 months ago
@HigherPlanes Are you retarded?
IntronDepot1 6 months ago
@IntronDepot1 That must be it.
HigherPlanes 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shempship Progress is a word we civilized love to use. Marching towards progress or whatever that means is just that...a march without consideration for its consquences. Is it progress to destroy our land base with material goods we no longer use? I don't see catfish ruining the planet, it takes real intelligence to do that. DQ
It is impossible to bring the poor up to our level when "our level" requires the existence of a lower class to produce cheap goods and to over power for resources.
DaSleeves 1 year ago
@shempship Progress is a word we civilized love to use. Marching towards progress or whatever that means is just that...a march without consideration for its consquences. Is it progress to destroy our land base with material goods we no longer use? I don't see catfish ruining the planet, it takes real intelligence to do that. DQ
It is impossible to bring the poor up to our level when "our level" requires the existence of a lower class to produce cheap goods and to over power for resources
DaSleeves 1 year ago
I dont really think the oil running out is a problem, it will Force(capital F) research and will help the ecological problems.
Thedreamshaperabc 1 year ago
has anyone the e-mail contact of this great man?
zaitss 1 year ago
@shempship I'm not suggesting that there is a black and white answer to the problem of increasing resource consumption. I'm simply wondering weather the third world significantly contributes to resource consumption, since you seemed from your original comment to blame everything on the third world. My opinion is that consumption is primarily a first world endeavor and has little to do with populations in these countries that use fractions of the per capita resources of the US.
taostoner1 1 year ago 10
@taostoner1 North America in general is an issue as a whole, look at the populations of both Canada and the US and look at the percentage of overweight individuals in both countries, and you'll see that is apart of the issue as well, alot of people in either country, or NA as a whole, take sustenance for granted, unlike other portions of the world who would kill for a loaf of bread, that we seemingly assume comes from an unending supply.
whitewolfinc 6 months ago
@shempship Hardly, you said that limiting third world population growth was key to limiting resource consumption, Which I don't see since it is the first world that uses a majority of the resources.
taostoner1 1 year ago
@shempship a person in the US probably uses about 100x the resources of an african or other third-world person
taostoner1 1 year ago
Totally agree with Jerry. We need to develop a new economic system based on sustainability. We need to confront issues such as population size & voters need to vote for politicians who propose workable sustainable policies. Most politicians promise endless economicv growth & say it can go on for ever...fools!
PortsladeBySea 1 year ago
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground.
EliteDoomer 1 year ago
History is LITTERED with the failed predictions of scare-mongers like this.
He's just making money, he has to have something big to say.
It's the politics of fear, made possible by the instant sharing of information. Resist!
The crises that do hit are always poorly predicted -- so called 'experts' are guessing like everyone else, but pretending they know better than anyone else because they have an agenda.
BTW -- he can't really be called Jerry Mandering! LOL
mmartini50 1 year ago
Growth don't mean just industrial growth. Its like saying a person stops growing at 20. Growth in information is the same as in industry. If more people comsume media like music and movies, it's still growing the gdp of a country.
MikDonsen 1 year ago
He is a stupid pessimist and has no faith in the free market. The Bloom Box blows him out of the water. Be very afraid of people like this. They want to control all resources and your lives. He wants to set up big government elites to control everything. Resist !
Entropy56 1 year ago
I don't understand what you find threatening about someone who's warning you about the fact that resources have a limit. He's not making this up, energy and minerals like we get with oil don't come out of thin air!
Do you even know what your magic bullet Bloom Box runs on?
Go ahead, keep telling yourself that the round planet is a conspiracy made up by the NWO.
werdnativ 1 year ago
The natural gas reserves in the US are actually growing; not shrinking. The Bloom Box runs on natural gas. Worldwide oil reserves are actually growing. The US has 8 times more shale oil than Saudi Arabia has crude oil. Next question, please...
Entropy56 1 year ago
You can't compare shale & crude oil 1:1. The EROEI of shale oil is very low, you have to mine tons of the stuff, and a huge energy cost to process useful yield from it! A better comparison would be how many net Btus each can provide. It's not 8 times.
Or is there another reason why the US stopped mining shale in the 80s and instead turned to oil imports?
Agreed, NG is definitely a better way but it's also non-renewable: that will start to run down when we all convert to it for electricity too.
werdnativ 1 year ago
we should be afraid of people like you...
yoyokewl 1 year ago
Communist bastard.
Entropy56 1 year ago
This man wrote a book calling for the abolition of television because it ENABLES big brother. Don't leave things half finished_read the whole story
SpartacusMoriarty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TRUCK & CAT...I ran over a cat this morning smashing him the length of his slender body. He was reduced to a pelt. It was unintentional. Starting the engine gives warning to critters, but this time I decided to coast and catch it in gear. If only I hadn't changed my routine Bright Eyes would be playing with Tabby & Tinker Bell right now! I learned a valuable lesson: surprise is the key to cat-killing. Tomorrow I'll be ready.
YourUTubeMonitor 1 year ago
We are fucked! The New World Order has already started.
numerrita 2 years ago
How the Beaver has aged!
LovingKimiKatkar 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasnt the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?" - Richard Dawkins (eugenicist)
LovingKimiKatkar 2 years ago
Humanity is evil! Repent!
If you live in a city and you think that its like that everywhere, buy a car and take a drive.
People have been saying that human folly will lead to the end of humanity for thousands of years now.
Things change. If oil/natural gas/reserves get lower they will eventually cost more until alternatives make economic sense and people use them instead. No central planning needed.
Eating meat will make sense until people learn how to digest grass.
galaktar 2 years ago
The problem of our time is going to be how to survive with just what humans can make. The resources will soon be depleted, there will be a scramble for what is left, but in order to continue living prosperously, humans are going to have to come up with some drastically new ideas.
scottie1f 2 years ago
The world's crowded with people where there's money to be made. There have always been too many people sharing too little space in cities. Planet Earth can sustain many billions of people. The people, on the other hand, must dethrone the elitists/eugenicists who foment disharmony by embattling & enslaving them in perpetual warfare.
procommenter 2 years ago
he bleaches his hair to look smart and einstainish
rootiest 2 years ago
You should check the work of organizations such as FPCN and Survival International. People have been living very well close to the earth without industrial civilization teaching them how. In fact, if it is right that it is mass society that is unsustainable, than it is not a question of choice. The fact that a lot of people may die due to the collapse doesnt change anything. Decentralization would be our best path and ignoring these arguments would represent a bigger catastrophe.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Listen if we just wake up and tune in, it doesnt take an expert to tell us we are fucked. Those who want to live in denial then good luck
Dandaniels1978 2 years ago
i believe there's more oil remaining than we've ever used. sure, its time to diversify our energy conversion, but it's not a time for panic.
CrackerJackLee 2 years ago
The problem is it's oil that is harder and harder to get to making it more and more expensive til eventually there may be oil but it will no longer be worth getting.
Promatheos 2 years ago
the arctic looks promising in all respects.
CrackerJackLee 2 years ago
Quality in food, health, and education can only be practiced amongst individuals with with freedom and democracy. Freedom and Democracy breed competition, competition breeds power, power breeds control. Control contradicts freedom and democracy.
Lets put it this way... nothing works.
If there is no end in number, there is no end in problem. we cannot control the cycle, we can only debate about it.
cycle like bipolar.
johnnybiscuits11 2 years ago
Economic growth can come from innovation etc. Growth will be intensive rather than extensive if there are resource constraints
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Growth without the addition of value is inflation. You see this in the quality of food around you, just over 1% growth rate (population per year) is not enough for a global food producing company so it squeezes out profits by trying to get people to eat cheaper food (e.g. less nutrition) in larger quantities for higher prizes. The prizes just need to be lower than on the quality stuff and bingo you have more than 1% growth selling food.
The external cost is loss of health and bad agriculture.
SushantaMog 2 years ago
Nominal figures increasing without addition of value is inflation. I was referring to real growth, where value is added. This is possible within a world where resources are fully exploited and finite.
Your theory smacks of leftist ideology but is interesting. A phenomenon like that, in order to be uniform across the industry, would have to be centrally directed and would not result from spontaneous order. I believe that consumer tastes still determine food quality.
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I don't really subscribe to leftist rightist ideologies but to a person who does I might lean there. As for consumer tastes I agree that eventually we'd choose truly practical food/goods but such rational behavior requires unbiased (e.g. true) knowledge guaranteed by unbiased education. Which we don't have it is for the most part centrally guided and generates the mindset being exploited. I hope you're right, that our true resource will be our minds, not the brute force ways of the past.
SushantaMog 2 years ago 2
I think the market for consumer goods is one of the most democratic aspects of the modern world. Freedom and Democracy breed innovation. As long as government keeps its paws off we will adapt and innovate out of any resource crisis. Otherwise we are as doomed as this guy predicts
Invirtuo 2 years ago
their is only one way to survive and we won't following the course we do now. IT is imperative to break away from the herd and embrace Nature - the commonality. dominion and the idea that we are above natures laws and other life forms is ludicrous. I see that in your statement. quit playing the games of control by govs, religions and corps and substitute with decentralizing everything. human beings are such a nasty lil life destroying species - aren't we? yeah, you too knucklehead.
berserkerkev 2 years ago
There are enough resources Jerry, let's call them commodities. The problem is the they will be more expensive because of a lack of investment in the past 10/20 years. You have to be insane to invest in oil research when oil prices are 10 dollar per barrel. When they are 150 per barrel, things change Jerry. Welcome to world of capitalism with is magnificent pricing system!
the1337k1ng 2 years ago
Why is it that so many smart progressives seem so intent on ignoring technological advances that make "resource depletion" a non-issue? Clearly from his statements, Mr. Mander is politically motivated, profoundly blinkered, or both.
hasatum 3 years ago
It seems you are wearing the blinkers;cognitive dissonance removes all doubt.Go back to sleep in your nice comfortable room on the titannic.
DFORCE1969 2 years ago
Don't get me wrong. I think the American Empire definitely has Titanic written all over it. That's not my point though. My point is that if humanity is going to get out of this debacle, it's going to have to be through preserving the best of our past to spur future ingenuity.
Many of our current efforts led on both sides of the aisle instead seem aimed at propping up the mistakes of the past to maintain the current status quo and concentrate power into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
hasatum 2 years ago
I agree;But to believe in a last minute techno-fix as many stil do is dangerously deluded;James Kunstler refers to the rear view mentality of the political & economic ruling class as "the pyschology of previous investment" ;They'll waste billions of fossil fuel infrastucture whilst neglecting the Green new deal outlined by van jones amongst others ,which would at least face the future realistically.
DFORCE1969 2 years ago
The elite may try to artificially reduce the human population. I wouldn't be surprised if some deadly plague breaks out. Something comparable to the black death.
Or they could do nothing and our society suffers a Roman style collapse. We are damned either way.
ProudAtheistBastard 2 years ago
Is it productive to consign yourself to defeat and trying to convince others that it is inevitable? There are many more non-elite than elite. Its this exact attitude that keep the majority on their knees. What I want to say in the politest way possible is, grow some balls.
hasatum 2 years ago
I hate conspiracy crap
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Why is it "dangerously deluded"? Why do you assume that a bunch of pen pushing bureaucrats are going to somehow do a better job that the people who pulled us up out the Dark Ages and sent us to the moon? I'm not promoting hubris, I'm just asking that people look at what science has done already and look at what it's doing now. We're so used to some of these marvels that we've forgotten how amazing they really are and some of the stuff on the cutting edge now promises to be at least as big.
hasatum 2 years ago
To the people offering their negative, all too clever comments; Really?!! What is so hard to understand that infinite growth is simply impossible with finite resources? This cannot be explained away with your liberal propaganda argument!
runnygrits 3 years ago
Inifinite economic growth is possible because technology continues to progress. Energy can be harnessed more efficiently and materials recombined into more productive forms. The people who play up this kind of crisis typically have one hand held out for donations and the other to take new taxes.
hasatum 3 years ago
Ha ha. Try again. Perhaps this time, with facts. Weak. This is simply fucking ridiculous. Infinite economic growth? Get real. On a basic level, infinite economic growth would depend on infinite population increase which, once again, is not possible. No increase in consumption, no increase in economy. Can I make it any simpler for you?
runnygrits 3 years ago
Infinite economic growth does not require infinite increase in population if the existing population increases its consumption. "Consumption" does not have to be material consumption. The music industry creates a very vibrant economy selling performances and digital data. Technology allows us to produce more such intangible goods of ever higher quality. If you would like more facts and examples, please let me know.
hasatum 3 years ago
How do you define infinite? Your examples don't quite explain how you find this possible. Consumption, especially in a technology reliant society always relies on material. How is digital music stored? How many ipods do you think are disposed of every year. I'm perfectly aware of the technotopian facts you speak of and they simply are not the answer. If you would like more facts and examples. Please let me know. I apologize for my earlier message. I wouldn't mind some healthy debate on this.
runnygrits 3 years ago
I use "infinite" in the common sense of "unlimited". Society always relies on material, but it does not necessarily rely on larger amounts of it (though larger amounts do make it easier). Digital music is stored on silicon. Most of the earth is made of silicon. The rest is easily made from metals such as recyclable aluminum. I don't want to give the idea that technology is a panacea; it is often used irresponsibly. However, progress lies in new ideas, not in Neo-Feudalism.
hasatum 3 years ago
then why are these technologies not widely available, and cheap enough for everyone to afford?
kellaneric 3 years ago
Technologies continue to fall in price. A $2000 dollar computer from 3 years ago costs less than $300 today. People at the time of the American revolution were lucky to have forks and spoons. Today the average person can easily take transcontinental flights. Technology moves much more quickly than most realize and it's accelerating all the time.
hasatum 3 years ago
Most people don't want to know the truth. They believe what they want to believe. Who wants to be told that they can only have one child? Who wants to be told how much they can consume? People regard these things as their rights, and will fight tooth and nail against any regulations to restrict those rights.
The system will break down, our empire will crumble, and a lot of people are going to die. This has happened before, just not on a global scale.
The strongest will survive.
ProudAtheistBastard 3 years ago
I'm not sure that pessimism is very helpful. Of course, being realistic is important, but we needn't accept a fatalistic vision of the future. If you believe in freedom and society, don't hole yourself up in a little bunker. Go out and find other people that feel the same way. Figure out ways to secure property and trade in your own local community. You have plenty of talented trustworthy neighbors without bothering with Washington.
hasatum 2 years ago
Have you tried talking to people about serious issues? Their eyes glaze over. You might as well be speaking in gibberish.
ProudAtheistBastard 2 years ago
I have met many very smart people and talked to them about serious issues. Many are pessimistic about the future right now, but they give similar advise as what I just gave. You don't have to accept that advice, but it'd be well worth your time to give it some thought.
hasatum 2 years ago
Hasatum, I am not against technology. I fully support funding scientific research. But their is no technology that can make running out of resources a non issue. Unless you can find a way to pull resources out of a hat, I don't know how you can go on saying that. Our society was designed to run on cheap energy. Take away the cheap energy, bad things happen.
ProudAtheistBastard 2 years ago
We are surrounded in energy. We're swimming in it. We got enough geothermal energy for centuries. Enough nuclear energy for at least 1 century. Clean coal isn't really clean, but it's cheap as dirt and we've got enough of that for centuries. We've got enough natural gas to get us by for who knows how long. Any one of these by itself is a potential solution. Taken together they're more than enough. Right now we just lack infrastructure and investment.
hasatum 2 years ago
But you were just saying don't hole yourself up, and now you're counting resources, amounts, weighing the benefits.Lets not think about getting by for centuries, that's not important at all, that's the problem. Our civilization and "dependency" on technology is like a drug but nobody admits it. We just silently agree that without it we would easily die.
Dargortheshadowlord 2 years ago
Did you read my post before responding? I said we have more than enough energy to last us for centuries. Without new technologies to tap into these new resources, wealth will continue to fall into the hands of privileged few and millions or even billions will die of easily preventable disease and starvation. I personally am not interested in living in a world of neo-feudalism and you better believe that's just what we'll get if we don't keep ahead of the curve.
hasatum 2 years ago
The problem is that we feel dependent on technology; sure your lifestyle may "require" it now but we have a responsibility as supposedly intelligent sentient to decide between what we really need and what will eventually harm us, this is VERY BASIC. The "privileged" few will always keep us in the dark about dangers as long as we see them as privileged, as long as we buy their shit. Life could be a cycle, but the idea "the curve" to keep ahead of puts you in a linear graph.
Dargortheshadowlord 2 years ago
It's not just our lifestyles that depend on progress. If progress stops, the economy fails. If the economy fails (as it might) millions in the developing world will die for a multitude of different reasons. Many thousands have already died as a result of our current economic crisis.
It is those people who live in poverty that now depend most on technological innovation, so I don't see how trying to live more like the developing world is supposed to help anyone.
hasatum 2 years ago
therein lies more dominion and the fact remains - fact - we must come to terms that we are not so special and cannot be. far less people and an understanding of our place in the biodiversity of the planet would be a good start but...that would not sit well with the heirarchys that we follow and who rule - government, religion and now the corporations. we must quit fostering them and quit playing their game - you're feeding into their control of you too. just a start but the machine is powerful
berserkerkev 2 years ago
Enviromaniac
Invirtuo 2 years ago
If Nature could be selective in deleting a species she could take out ONLY ignorance like yours. Instead we all suffer - thanks dipshit . but I'm going out in style and with a lil humor. U - stale, boring and totally uncreative - believing only in what your mind has been programmed to.its sad tho, in that every human malady - pers. and social etc. - could be remedied thru alignment with Nature - dumping the man made shit. Dominion - wow! you had your chance - its MY turn. Yeehaw!
berserkerkev 2 years ago
You're incoherent and I don't care about nature. It doesn't interest me
Invirtuo 2 years ago
quit playing quit trying to incorporate your personal beliefs into the same systemsin which they were developed in. PEople are s'pose to die but not at the hands of the priviledged few - humans must drop dominion, quit following these heirarchies and adopt an alliance with a commonality - Nature. all else is futile.
berserkerkev 2 years ago 2
You're wading in pretty deep and YouTube comments really aren't the best place for philosophical debates, but I'd stress two points.
First: humans are a part of Nature, so everything we do, including evil things, are natural. That doesn't mean we should condone evil, but neither should we kid ourselves about the righteousness of the natural world.
Second: we are special. If you haven't figured out that a human life is worth more than than of a flatworm, then you've got some living to do.
hasatum 2 years ago
This pointless vague statement doesn't really define what is "good" or "special". I can't say I agree or disagree.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
It is not necessary to define "good" or "special". These are kindergarten words. We can wax philosophical about their precise implications for special instances, but here pretty much any ordinary definition will do.
Let's put it this way, we are special enough that If you had the choice between running down a child or a flatworm with your car and you were to choose the child, you would not be good, you would be a monster. If you can't acknowledge that, then you've really lost touch.
hasatum 2 years ago
The problem is that no one here claims that it would be better to kill a child than a flatworm. So, again, to classify man as special, in this context, is pointless. I know a child has a meaning for the words "good" and "special". I have seen them use it. The problem is that you did not.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I believe that sort of discourse can be dangerous. The way it is meant to define the value of species from a universal and static point of view. Of course man will preserve its view on life and step on worms. Does that make him 'special'? Is a lion at fault when he values himself over a human? I believe that the moment we start treating worms as accessory and worthless, we are in danger of becoming what we described. The problem of sustainability we are facing is directly link to that culture.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I disagree.
1) We can image creatures more magnificent than humans. We can imagine them having such value, that even good humans would consider it more important to protect one of these creatures than another human. We can do this because we are rational. Lions cannot.
2) If you can understand a child's use of "good" and "special", then you can surely understand mine.
3) No one is arguing that worms are worthless.
For more arguments on sustainability, see my other posts in this thread.
hasatum 2 years ago
I would sure be happy to hear about that imaginary creature who's thought a lion could not offer me. You classify that ability as "rational", but of course we already know that you can play games with humans that you cannot with a lion. That is a tautology that says nothing about men and lions. I still don't understand how that makes humans "special" in the big hierarchy of life.
Can you please sum up for me what you think about what authors such as Jerry Mander are saying.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
A lion isn't going to give you any consideration because it isn't going to be able to consider you abstractly the way a human would be able to consider another creature. That is a difference. There is no tautology. The fact that humans are capable of thinking about ethics and lions are not is a significant distinction. There's good reason to think that a world without rational, ethical creatures is lacking in a way that a world without some particular animal isn't. See above for a summary.
hasatum 2 years ago
You are saying that a lion does not possess the human values of a human, because he is not a human. That is a tautology. Your post just describes what I said before, which is that we all already know that you can play games with humans that you cant with lions. Those romantic expressions about ethics and abstract thinking just reinforce your notions about man being special, within our anthropocentric culture. You are really not saying anything.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
It is not a tautology. Humans are rational and rationality is valuable. Any creature that possesses rationality is valuable. Lions do not possess rationality. This doesn't mean they are valueless, but they are limited to the value of their other attributes.
If you cannot agree that rationality is something worth valuing more than the attributes of a lion, then you are almost certainly irrational and not worth talking to.
hasatum 2 years ago
Moreover, ethics has nothing to do with romanticism. If you do not believe that ethics are important, then you are immoral and as such are worse off than a lion who is merely amoral.
My argument has nothing to do with an "anthropocentric culture". It has to do with one deciding to either admit that reason is important or stop pretending to be reasonable.
hasatum 2 years ago
You should look the word "romanticism" in a dictionary. I didn't say that ethics are not important. You should lose that sensationalist tone of owning human values. I was talking about your embellishment of a description that I had already addressed, in the context of seeking what value it had for the discussion at hand.
When you put the definition of reason in those terms, you are making a vague statement to which no one can deny, but that it is of no real meaning.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I am not speaking primarily from a romantic tradition nor did I claim to; I'm speaking from plain reason. How is it sensationalist when I point out that that you seem to be disowning human values? I've made very direct statements that should be easily comprehensible to any fluent speaker of English. The fact is that you have disarmed yourself by abandoning the primacy of reason. Without accepting it, how are mere unsupported opinions supposed to convince anyone of anything?
hasatum 2 years ago
The problem for me concerns precisely the fact that I have a hard time in understanding your description of man. Its hard to see any objectivity in the classifications you made. I don't see how I have abandoned reason by any definition.
About the romantic reference, I wasnt aware that you were using any tradition at all. I used that expression and you seemed to raise a problem for which I tried to respond. That is all. I dont know if you have any doubts about that or not.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Do you agree or disagree that reason has value? If you agree, then humans have value that animals do not. If you disagree, then you're irrational and the conversation is finished.
I'm not interested in romanticism. I merely clarified a point which you seem to insist on bringing up.
hasatum 2 years ago
So, you are saying that there is a definition for reason that is unquestionably found in men and not in animals. I know they teach that man is a "rational animal" in kinder garden, but there is no consensus whatsoever that such statement is a self-evident truth.
All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this - Bertrand Russell
You are not even discussing rationality. You are just throwing a label that you were taught to repeat over and over in school.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Russell was saying that he could not find evidence that people behave rationally. That is quite different from saying whether or not we are capable of employing reason at all.
As for defining reason, choose whatever common definition you like. Without the ability to accumulate reason through culture, a brute is indeed more similar in value to that of an animal. With it, we can go to the moon and populate the stars. The difference is qualitative and significant.
hasatum 2 years ago
The full quote concerns the category "rational animal". What you said about being capable to behave rationally is within the scope of such debate. Now, how can I agree to apply a category whose definition is not clear and opened to debate? Suggesting that I should choose whatever I like seems absurd. Also, are you now going to argue that populating the stars is a good thing as another self-evident truth? I can give you a list of authors who disagree. Are they irrational like animals too?
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Nope. The fact that we are capable of reason and sometimes employ it is relevant. You tacitly agree that we can do so by entering into debate in the first place. If you feel that reason is not at least instrumentally valuable, I wonder why you bother?
By saying "you choose" I'm saying that I am willing to defend any definition of reason that you hold up. It doesn't matter. Virtually any one of them will exist in humans to a degree that is qualitatively different from that of all other animals.
hasatum 2 years ago
Nope? But that is exactly what I said. The fact that we show signs that we are using our reason or not is relevant to understand what it means to classify men in a certain way. Now, you should read Russel. Like him, there are hundred more. I just gave an example for something you claimed to be self-evident.
Again, if you insist in talking about categories and values in such loose terms, you end up with a useless fallacy. Men are men. Lions are not men. Nothing can be more men then men
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I have read Russell. So what? Are you able to directly answer any of my arguments or will you continue to evade? There is no fallacy. I've insisted on nothing. I've used regular everyday language and dared you to find a definition of it that I cannot defend. I'm not talking about men or women. I'm talking about the fact that reason has value. Do you deny it? Yes or no?
hasatum 2 years ago
I am not evading anything. Point out to me an argument that I have not addressed. I already told you that such question is meaningless. You define those two concepts by one another. Your fallacy of false dichotomy is a problem of your own. I am not at fault by not answering - yes or no.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Wow. In one breath you claim to answer all my questions and in the next you refuse to do so. Brilliant! False dichotomy? I asked whether reason is valuable or not. There is no dichotomy. What part of the question didn't you understand? It's true or false not apples or oranges.
hasatum 2 years ago
How is - "meaningless" - not an answer? How did I refused to answer your question? I clearly explained to you why - yes or no - represent a fallacy in that context, known as a false dichotomy. What more can I say?
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Meaningless? Essentially the argument boils down to "Should animals be treated as equals?" This is an ethical question. You've steered clear of answering whether ethics is valuable, though you shied away from being called immoral. Clearly you feel that acting ethically is important. Next you engage in a lengthy philosophical debate. Clearly you feel that reason is important. Now you claim that attributing value to reason is meaningless? What? Shall I then launch into a volley of absurdity?
hasatum 2 years ago
I didn't say that attributing value to reason is meaningless. You are using the word in different contexts and then synthesizing the conclusions. That is a basic formula for a fallacy. I said that the question "Does reason has value" on its own is meaningless in terms of reaching a valid conclusion. Reason is defined, among other things, as a value. For you to make an universal claim about its meaning, you have to be clear on the extension of what you are discussing.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I think I understand the math that you are trying to do. Reason has value, men have reason, men have value that animals do not. Silly conclusions that go nowhere. If if you agree that there is something that men has that other animals don't, you are left without any consideration on the extent of such category. Is pontless, considering that no one is arguing for the universal claim "Men is the same as lion".
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I would say that we all want to be reasonable, or use the term reason as a value one time or another. That doesn't mean that someone who professes to be anti-rationalism is someone who is pro-stupidty and anti-winning debates. It's a question of definition. And defining language presents its own challenges.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I have always found odd these yes or no questions in a debate
Is Einstein smarter than Madonna? What is smart? Well, are you evading the question? Clearly one has been found to have higher IQ than the other. But if you already defined smarter from the beginning, you just answered your own question. The problem is that there isn't a consensus about IQ reflecting smartness. So, it's just not a good way to discuss this topic if you aren't just looking to entrap someone in a debate by semantics.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I'm not talking about artificial terms like IQ. I'm talking about value. I'm not asking you to give me an ordinal value ranking the value of different objects. I'm asking whether reason has value or not. When one asks, "Does gold have value?" The answer is not "meaningless", it's "yes". To argue that gold is not valuable to dogs or drowning men is to be pedantic to the point of absurdity. Perhaps now you'd like to argue over the meaning of "value"? Sometimes "yes" or "no" really is the answer.
hasatum 2 years ago
I'm not arguing whether humans are the same as lions. I'm arguing that we needn't treat other animals as equals. I"m arguing that a world without humans is lacking in a way that a world without lions is not. I'm not making a category error.
I am arguing that:
1) The existence of reason (culture, ethics, etc.) has value.
2) Reason exists because humans exist, not because lions exist.
3) Humans have value that lions do not.
The logic is valid so you must deny the premises. Do you?
hasatum 2 years ago
I don't think you understood the point about IQ. This has got nothing to do with being measured or not. The question about the value of gold is actually quite aburd too, unless you are having a discussion in economics that is fully in context. You can actually discuss the value of gold beyond yes or no. I have seen books about it. So, I think that very example you gave is good about why I think you are trying to drag me on to this tautological statements to reinforce your views on the wolrd
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
You are arguing that we needn't treat other animals as equals? Well, I wouldn't invite a lion to be a member of a city council. Does that bring us closer in our dicussion?
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I really don't want to be evading the question here, but I honestly think that the statement "ethics have value" is absurd, for the reasons I have explained. I have never really heard anyone defend what you are saying other than priests giving a speech about men being something between animals and angels, and making statements very close to the ones you made.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
You've never heard anyone argue that a human is more valuable than an animal? Seriously? Are you joking? And yes you are either evading or being willfully dense. A world without ethics would be one that is quite different from the one we have today. I suggest that it would be a much worse one. Do you disagree?
hasatum 2 years ago
Since you are talking about ethics and have already passed judgment about my morality, I have to say that, even though you may think that this for me is only a discussion about language and philosophy, I believe that some of the things you said lead to immoral deeds.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
All that talk about reason as an ability and desire to populate the stars, not only is opens questions about sustainability and the relative value to our purpose, but has in fact been used as a justification to wipe out entire groups of peoples whose culture does not involve such goals. This reality is very well documented by organizations such as Survival International and the FPCN.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Another issue is the treatment of animals. As I have told you, I don't know exactly what you mean by reason. You speak of a sense of ethics associated with reason. Do you suppose that animals have no ethics? Maybe you are not sensible enough to what an animal can be. Some scientists have indeed concluded that animals have shown to possess a sense of right and wrong. This obviously opens a problem to where you draw the line between animals and humans. I provide source in next post.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
Just google earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong Furthermore, it's not clear about what you understand to be an animal, when, for example, one thinks of close related monkeys. And it's not only the chimpanzee, but other branches of Great apes. They can have smaller brains than ours (like the Homo ergaster) or bigger brains than ours (like the Neanderthal). Exactly what makes our own "special"?
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
We have also discussed reason associated with communication. Obviously a lion cannot understand you like another human being can, but the same is true between any other two species. Well, I remember a scientist claiming that ETs would not contact us but a orca whale species. Aside from the strange remark, it was interesting to hear him explain how their language system is much more complex than ours. Dolphins are also known to have more complex brain parts than ours, with close bodybrain ratio
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
The fact is that it's hard to judge what is going on in the animal world. These are just some facts that may shock some people in thinking human reality in its own terms. With having the mistake of giving the romantic follow trough that I was telling you about earlier, I would say that the more I look into animals, the more I feel that humans are special because they are unique and not because they are superior.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
I didn't want to get personal, but, since you are talking about saving face and end discussions, I have to say that it's hard to me to fuel a discussion with someone who discusses concepts in such an infantile manner. Your impressions on men superiority are cliché and discussed in a way that in terms of logic just goes round and round. I gave the IQ example to make a statement about a yes or no question going wrong, and you made an analogy with the discussion we were having where there is none.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
What kind of answer are you looking for? A description of specific neuronal structures? Again, I'd warn that you not get too focused on the biology or even the brain. Virtually everything that makes us human is the fact that we augment ourselves: through tools, through language, through culture. The language of dolphins is sophisticated because it's communicating a lot of geospatial information. That's interesting but less significant than what we do.
hasatum 2 years ago
Again and again, you just throw you cliche impressions and ignore what others (namely "rational" authors) are saying. The fact is that the orc whales, for example, have been described as having a culture. Like that, there are millions of other examples. So, it's not a question of we augmenting ourselves within our own culture, and not biology, that is just your momentary, unsupported school theory
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
What you said about misuse of reason and technology is just your eurocentric, racist view of the world in support of the notion that industrial civilization is a consequence of evolutionary biology. For the sake of the discussion we are having, its enough for me to say that such conclusion is clearly not self evident. For example, google "progress can kill" for first result to see why I believe your position is the one that is unfounded and leads to unethical behaviour
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
LOL. My wife is Japanese. I'm American. I'm a racist? I've lived in Thailand. I know what Nature looks like and I know what poverty looks like. I also happen to know that if we were to every decide that progress and technology wasn't worth the effort, billions of people would die. Most of them would not be Europeans or Americans. Who then is the real racist? Are you so worried about lions and flatworms that you're willing to let the world die of famine and disease? Shame on you.
hasatum 2 years ago
So, your wife is Japonese, so I guess you are free to say things like "african culture is poor and old". Nobody can say your views are based on a racist culture, right? And thank you for the lesson on youtube. As a luddite, I never thought about computers being ''technological''. You could perhaps learn more if you hadnt such a dishonest attitude in debates. It has got nothing to do with thinking of being superior and smarter, but I am usually more inquisitive about other peoples beliefs.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago
What are you talking about? I'm saying that technological progress is necessary if starvation is to be avoided in Africa and you're talking about culture?
If you have accepted that YouTube is a product of technology then perhaps you've started to understand that technology is something that can help people regardless of their culture.
I'm curious as to why you consider my attitude to be dishonest. Perhaps you can provide a specific example?
hasatum 2 years ago
I am well aware of studies of behavior in animals that is both ethical and unethical. This doesn't necessarily say anything about their ability to engage in ethics. If you focus to narrowly on the biological, you will miss the fact that a great part of human consciousness is the result of participation in a larger culture. This results in differences that are exponential and qualitatively different from what is found in the rest of the animal world.
hasatum 2 years ago
I think I've addressed the role of technology for sustainability in my previous posts. The fact that some people misuse reason is tragic but irrelevant to the issue.
hasatum 2 years ago
I have said nothing about your ethics except that your argument logically entails that you do not value ethics.
hasatum 2 years ago
No it doesn't. My point has real implications. Your example is a joke and not a very funny one at that. Clearly you're looking for a way to end this discussion while saving face. Don't bother. You need to reevaluate your views on the matter. "Lions are less valuable to humans" may be a very general statement that can be misinterpreted, but it is basically true. Talk about "anthropocentrism" is misguided when it is used as a ploy to play down the importance of reason and technological advance.
hasatum 2 years ago
I did understand you point about IQ and I don't think that you do. The point about gold is not absurd. You can have a discussion about gold beyond yes or no. And? I"ve said before, there's no tautology. There's not category error. I'm not enforcing anything. I'm asking a direct question using words with well understood meaning. "Existence", "reason", "have", and "value" all have non-controversial meaning.
hasatum 2 years ago
"And?" is precisely my question. You gave the gold example and I told you why your question on value is not like asking the value of gold in a practical situation.
If you are going to discuss technological advancement from a sociological and philosophical point of view, you should read some books on the subject. Because it's not an evident truth, as you seem to suggest, that building bridges and towers are good and destined for men's capabilities.
freedomclubLX 2 years ago