The Most Important Question of our Age?

Forums: Philosophy, Social Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The impending extinction of humankind got me into philosophy, drove me to ask and seek answers to a wide range of other questions. I wanted to know what's causing it and if it might be avoided?

I couldn't understand why people weren't as interested in the idea as I was - the idea that decisions and actions taken today, and on an ongoing basis, effect the future prospects of the species. Then I came across this:

Quote:

Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecedented event. Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.

It's not just something people don't want to think about, but according to Tversky and Kahneman, something people are psychologically unable to consider. Yet I was able - and think that other people are too.

I believe the problem to be fundamentally epistemological in nature, but I don't have anything profound to say about epistemology. This topic has connotations for almost every other area of philosophy, but I've sited it here because the sociological encompasses science, language, law, religion, politics, economics, psychology, evolution, history...all relevent to understanding of this topic.

I'm hoping for a constructive dialogue aimed at addressing extinction - and so would first ask for initial thoughts on the question: Is this, as I believe, the most significant philosophical question of our time?

iconoclast.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 6,013 • Replies: 115

No top replies

@iconoclast,

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast, Smile

Yes it is a strange phenomena, this apparent sense of utter powerlessness in the face of impending doom. This is one more reason I have such disrespect for the various faith traditions but in particularly Christianity, it is so practiced at avoiding reality that it is still telling its believers to go forth and multiply. Is it a matter of awakening to reality across the board. What other institutions are practiced at this kind of stick your head in the sand attitude, certainly government and the media are not on board, society needs desparately to restructure for conservation and simplier less wasteful life styles. Where are our leaders here, is veryone resigned to a fate of extinction?

1 Reply

@boagie,

The sense of impending doom is immensely important. In the late 1800's, the issue became particularly compelling, especially with such events as the Franco-Prussian War. Impending doom became a central theme in art and literature at that time. HG Wells' "War of the Worlds" is the classic.

It's a modern theme - a reaction to modern society. Prior to industrialization, civilization was immediately limited by resources; most importantly food. With industrialization, suddenly nations could not only provide enough, but provide far more than was needed. We began to lose sight of that ultimate conservative truth - we have finite resources.

While the issue is difficult for people to deeply consider, there is a history of significant contemplation about impending doom. And the responses have been all over the map.

Boagie is incorrect when he suggests that religion/Christianity have a "stick your head in the sand attitude" toward impending, catastrophic doom. This is patently false. I have deep concerns regarding many of the religious responses to the problem of impending doom, but religion has, none the less, addressed the matter head on. I imagine we are all familiar with the apocalyptic fundamentalism - preaches talking about the end times, the terrifyingly literal interpretations of Revelations. This is in direct response to the human fear of impending doom. Even though I am appalled by this particular religious reaction, I at least have to recognize this sort of theology as a response to the problem at hand.
The problems of modernity, impending doom being one of the major issues of modernity, have had an immense influence on religion - changed the face of faith tradition across the globe.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

The impending extinction of humankind got me into philosophy, drove me to ask and seek answers to a wide range of other questions. I wanted to know what's causing it and if it might be avoided?

Doesn't "impending" normally mean "about to occur"? Aren't there nearly 7 billion people in the world, more than have ever existed at any point in time? Are you referring to a possibility of widespread nuclear warfare in the near future? Sorry to seem like a pedant, I honestly just want clarification here so I can better understand. :perplexed:

Quote:

I couldn't understand why people weren't as interested in the idea as I was - the idea that decisions and actions taken today, and on an ongoing basis, effect the future prospects of the species. Then I came across this:

Quote:
Tversky and Kahneman have produced evidence that humans suffer cognitive biases which would tend to minimize the perception of this unprecedented event. Denial is a negative "availability heuristic" shown to occur when an outcome is so upsetting that the very act of thinking about it leads to an increased refusal to believe it might occur. In this case, imagining human extinction probably makes it seem less likely.

It's not just something people don't want to think about, but according to Tversky and Kahneman, something people are psychologically unable to consider. Yet I was able - and think that other people are too.

No, no, I think you misunderstand. Tversky and Kahneman (and myslf btw)think people are psychologically able to consider it, but they aren't specifically geared to think about it, and when they do, they may be liable to to not appreciate it's likelihood. This isn't the same as being psychologically unable to think about it. I bet everyone that reads this thread will find themselves able to consider it, whether they find it inevitable and of immediate concern or not, as you seem to.

Quote:

I believe the problem to be fundamentally epistemological in nature, but I don't have anything profound to say about epistemology. This topic has connotations for almost every other area of philosophy, but I've sited it here because the sociological encompasses science, language, law, religion, politics, economics, psychology, evolution, history...all relevent to understanding of this topic.

I'm hoping for a constructive dialogue aimed at addressing extinction - and so would first ask for initial thoughts on the question: Is this, as I believe, the most significant philosophical question of our time?

So the question, if I've got it right is "What are the possible causes of human extinction and is there a way to avoid it?" From your first paragraph, I feel like you and I are viewing the situation somewhat differently, and I hope you can clarify your position to me.
At any rate, I think the potential causes of human extinction are the same as they have been for any species throughout time on Earth, with the addition of results of nuclear warfare and pollution. We can try to prevent nuclear warfare through diplomacy and easing international relations. Unfortunately though, I think there is no complete turning back in regards to WMDs. A threat will now always be there. There's likely no way to assure that no one will have or use them. In regards to pollution, we can get people more concerned and aware of the damage they are doing to the enviroment, and to work towards using clean, renewable energy sources. An asteroid could do us all in one day. We can try to avoid extinction from that by increased ability to detect them, and coming up with and implementing plans to be able to destroy or deflect an asteroid headed for us. Drastic global climate change (not even necessarily the anthropogenic type) could make our planet uninhabitable for humans as they are now. Heck, even if we last a really long time, one day our sun will burn out. Maybe one day we can come up with a way to sustain human life on extrasolar planets. If we last long enough, we'll probably have to do something like that. More likely than not though, one way or another, just like for the 99% of species that have ever existed on this planet, extinction is our future. I think the best we can do is try to hand down the best possible world to future generations, so they can do the same for those that come after them.

2 Replies

@Deftil,

Update on the state of world.

YouTube - 'Call of Life' Facing the Mass Extinction Trailer

0 Replies

@Deftil,

Iconoclast,

People are uninterested in this issue for the same reason that teenagers neglect any notion of their own mortality, why people are self-indulgent at the expense of health (and wealth), and why politicians will never make responsible long-term plans at the expense of popular short-term quick fixes.

The negative interpretation of this, of course, is that people are impulsive, short-sighted, plan poorly.

The other side, however, is that for our entire evolutionary history, up until very very recently, we've had no such concept of our future. We've evolved to be much more conscious of our immediate needs, because, honestly, the immediate needs are what have meant life or death.

So on the one hand you're right that we're being negligent not only of important questions but also of how to obtain and act on reliable information.

On the other hand, it's a bit unnatural to expect that this should come easily to humans. We only live once, and it's a lot easier to think about our own problems than those of our distant progeny.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

I wanted to know what's causing it and if it might be avoided?

I think its pretty obvious whats causing it, and that blatancy makes people feel like its under control when the obviousness is yet so complex and as such, the avoiding it.

We are animals. :depressed:

In living we should ask what makes us deserve it, how can I make myself real? And in doing so perhaps we can found some sort of peace and prolonged extinction.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Thanks everyone for replying to this post,

boagie, Thanks for the video. It identifies some of the core issues as they relate to loss of biodiversity, of which we are part, and upon which we are dependent. It also gives some support to Tversky and Kahneman assertions about denial, as Aedes says, we have evolved to consider the survival implications of the immediate, and are not wired to see the long term implications of the everyday. (note that this includes politicians and businessmen - not just individuals, but people who direct nations and corporations.)

But this is just one of the extinction threats I'd identify, with much the same causes, and of those, the least immediate threat. In chronological order I'd suggest we need to address the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation - (the last including, but not restricted to loss of biodiversity) in order to secure the continued existence of humankind.

In direct answer to our pedantic friend Deftil, yes, I think nuclear war is the likely outcome of a failure to address the energy crisis, and for this reason, it is foremost on the list. Climate change is intimately related to energy use, is exhasserbated by over-population and causes loss of biodiversity, so in addressing energy we are simultaneously adressing these others threats.

I agree with VideCorSpoon that there is something to be said existentially about meaning and purpose created by human beings rather than handed down from on high, but I'd acknowledge that, with the suggestion that, it's only in the present era we have a sound scientific understanding of reality.

The epistemological problem, and the core of my thesis is that our societies and institutions, our politics and economics, our rights and responsibilities, identities and purposes are founded in an age before we had an adequate scientific understanding of the world and the human being.

(Please pardon my boldness.)

So, at last we come to Didymos Thomas, the unintended victim - a man of faith and good conscience, a sincere and intelligent man I have no doubt, but whose beliefs, nonetheless, constitute an obstacle to be overcome. It's not so much religion's stick your head in the sand attitude, or not, that's the problem, for according to Tversky and Kahneman we all suffer from that, but that religion centralizes skeptical doubt in face of scientific fact, and thus allows nations and corporations to use science as a tool while ignoring scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

I'm sorry if I haven't directly addressed any point raised but now invite comments on this reply as a basis for further discussion.

regards,

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

I think the main problem with a lot of Christians in this reguard is that, they have identified science and/or scientists as their arch enemy, while others chose to believe those scientist bought and payed for by the oil industry. These employees often claim there is no problem, its just the cyclical nature of the earth reguarding climate change, and of course this is rather soothng. If we understand that forethought reguarding survival of our progeny is not an immediate concern due to an intellectual want, what then are we left with, humanity will wait until it is most definately to late, which may or may not already be the case. So much for humanities egocentric evaluation of itself, man sitting in the middle of the road staring down it while the truck which will kill him continues to speed towards him---if it were not so tragic, it would be funny.

I vote for an international full nuclear exchange!!:brickwall:

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

... but that religion centralizes skeptical doubt in face of scientific fact, and thus allows nations and corporations to use science as a tool while ignoring scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

... well stated ... science was definitely a game-changer ... it used to be that advances happened slothfully through fortuitous accident and/or hit-or-miss guesswork, giving social groups plenty of time to consider each in turn and adapt/create oral mythologies for their ethical application ... the situation we face today, on the other hand, is one where we abide by stagnant mythologies that were cast into the concrete of the written word over 2,000 years ago while at the same time science offers up new advances on a daily basis ... unfortunately this means that there's a huge ethical vacuum building up ... outdated traditions that refuse to change can't offer any ethical tools for dealing with with the pace of scientific advancement - unfortunately, science itself doesn't offer up any either ... existentialism doesn't seem to me to be an answer here - if everyone is left to their own devices to construct their individual ethics, we're asking for ethical chaos ... where's a good adaptable keep-up-with-science philosophical ideology when you need one?! Wink

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

boagie,

I want to try and seperate the person from the ideas. Religion is abusive, and IMO, those who believe it are suffering some variant of the Helsinki Syndrome - having subjugated thier own will in developing an emotionally co-dependent relationship with thier abuser. It's not thier fault, they had it drummed into them since childhood and grew up in a society where religious belief offers an excuse to abdicate from the difficulty of authentic expression in a synthetic world. They don't have that existential angst - or have to figure the moral calculus of every form of life they encounter. Everything that happens is for a reason, in God's hands, part of the grand plan we mere mortals can in no-way envisage - even the bad stuff and people morally condemned on the Good Book's say so. I know this can be enormously frustrating for us that take those burdens upon ourselves - but it's no use or excuse to slap that serene condecension off thier smug faces!!! There are bigger problems.

Paulhanke says:

Quote:

where's a good adaptable keep-up-with-science philosophical ideology when you need one?!

Here - I've got one, but it's some-way off yet. I've been concerned with this question for about 15 years now, and am educated to degree standard in sociology and politics, so I hope you'll forgive my presumption in taking the lead, but I think I know where we should be going. It takes a bit of time and involvement to see it - and so, given the commonality of human reason, I hope to reconstruct my journey from your thoughts. That, or this will turn into a thesis defense in face of attack from all directions at once - but either way, it's better discussed than not.
It's like you say, science was a game changer, but the game didn't change - it just employed science to create more powerful tools to pursue the same goals - those of institutions founded in an era of ignorance and superstition.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

but that religion centralizes skeptical doubt in face of scientific fact, and thus allows nations and corporations to use science as a tool while ignoring scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

Ah, Iconoclast, we come back to the old logical flaw so often exhibited by religious critics. How many times have I said - 'not necessarily'?

I would suggest, as would many others, that religion should promote the use of scientific knowledge in human affairs. Pragmatic issues need pragmatic responses. What did the Dalai Lama say? To paraphrase - 'When science and Buddhist doctrine are contradictory, go with the science.'

I'm not sure what you mean by "centralize skeptical doubt in the face of scientific fact". But obviously we at least have to credit Tibetan Buddhism with officially promoting the value of science.

Examples abound. Just look at Islam. In the middle ages as Islamic culture flourished, the pursuit of science was holy. Science was an entirely rational pursuit for the Islamic scholars, and was given mythological value to reinforce the importence of science.

It is easy, in today's world, to focus solely on the conservative and fundamentalist religious factions, especially if you are already skeptical of religion. But this narrow view is unwise and leads to a great deal of misunderstanding about religion.

Quote:

It's not so much religion's stick your head in the sand attitude, or not, that's the problem, for according to Tversky and Kahneman we all suffer from that

That's the thing, though; the supposed stick your head in the mud attitude of religion is a mischaracterization of religion at large. While appropriate against some institutions and thinkers, the suggestion is wildly inaccurate when applied to most institutions and thinkers.

Quote:

I think the main problem with a lot of Christians in this reguard is that, they have identified science and/or scientists as their arch enemy, while others chose to believe those scientist bought and payed for by the oil industry.

This is a real problem among conservative Christians. It's where a very serious split, at least in Protestant America, began. The upside is that there exists a very real and considerable liberal aspect to modern religion.

Quote:

the situation we face today, on the other hand, is one where we abide by stagnant mythologies that were cast into the concrete of the written word over 2,000 years ago while at the same time science offers up new advances on a daily basis

The speed of scientific advancement is part of the problem for many conservative Christians, but not for the reasons you state here.

Religion is anything but stagnant. There is no concrete, and popular religion has experienced massive changes over 2,000 years.

The problem of the speed of scientific advancement is that it can be overwhelming to live in such a dynamic world. If an individual is already skeptical of science because they see the science as contradicting their religious views, the despair of an ever changing world can be the deal breaker. This is especially true for people who have a conservative ideal - people who look to the past for their ideal, as opposed to people who look to the future when they imagine utopia.

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand - religion changes just like everything else in the world. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam - these did not come from thin air. People pioneered new doctrines to replace the old paganism because the condition of human life had changed. As the condition of human life changes, the mythological context must change as well. That mythological context only becomes harmful when people forget that the mythology is indeed mythology, and not factually true or logically coherent. And be very sure that humans are not as Aristotle thought, rational beings. We have the use of reason, and make good use of reason, but we are mostly irrational beings. We have instincts and are impulsive. Most of our day to day reasoning is done in reverse - we act and then reason about the act to prop ourselves up, to feel good about the way we acted.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Religion is anything but stagnant. There is no concrete, and popular religion has experienced massive changes over 2,000 years.

... are you saying that the foundational religious texts and myths have massively changed in 2,000 years?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not sure why this is hard to understand - religion changes just like everything else in the world. Christianity, Buddhism, Islam - these did not come from thin air. People pioneered new doctrines to replace the old paganism because the condition of human life had changed. As the condition of human life changes, the mythological context must change as well.

... not hard to understand at all ... science has radically changed the condition of human life - is it time to replace the old mythologies?

Didymos Thomas wrote:

That mythological context only becomes harmful when people forget that the mythology is indeed mythology, and not factually true or logically coherent.

... that mythological context also only becomes useful when it helps people to live and thrive in the world as it is (vs. the world of 2,000 years ago) ... is a mythology that is not useful and potentially harmful one worth hanging onto?

"I would say that there's no conflict between mysticism, the mystical dimension and its realization, and science. But there is a difference between the science of 2000 B.C. and the science of 2000 A.D. And we're in trouble because we have a sacred text that was composed somewhere else by another people a long time ago and has nothing to do with the experience of our lives. And so there's a fundamental disengagement. ... mythology as a petrifact, something hat has dried up, is dead, is not working ..."
(Joseph Campbell in "Transformations of Myth Through Time")

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

... are you saying that the foundational religious texts and myths have massively changed in 2,000 years?

Well, they have. But that's not the meat of the change in religion. The more significant changes are the way in which man reads those texts and incorporates those readings into their daily life.

Quote:

... not hard to understand at all ... science has radically changed the condition of human life - is it time to replace the old mythologies?

Replace is too strong. New mythos is needed when the already existing mythos doesn't work for some people. Look at Hinduism - Hinduism was losing it's place, and Buddhism appeared. But Hinduism was not replaced, because Hinduism also adapted.

I think for many people, a new mythology, or at least a new take on the current mythologies is needed.

Quote:

... that mythological context also only becomes useful when it helps people to live fruitfully in the world as it is (vs. the world of 2,000 years ago) ... is a mythology that is not useful and potentially harmful one worth hanging onto?

What is the world today? My world is vastly different from the world of a nomad on the steppes of Asia, or the world of a Japanese businessman, ect. Culture and condition vary, so religion will vary. Individual temperment varies, so religion will also vary.

This is why no one faith tradition is right for everyone.

If we look at the past, we find that the move away from older mythologies does not require a systematic approach. People will convert according to their changing needs. For example, there is no reason to eliminate Homer just because his paganism doesn't work for people any longer.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

If we look at the past, we find that the move away from older mythologies does not require a systematic approach. People will convert according to their changing needs. For example, there is no reason to eliminate Homer just because his paganism doesn't work for people any longer.

... agreed - and while I would like to see a step-change to a new mythology/ideology happen via a systematic and coherent approach, I'm a realist - it ain't gonna happen that way ... there are too many emotional needs for a mythology to fulfill and our understanding of emotion and mind is too incomplete - I expect the (r)evolutionary process will be more organic (with, at best, forward thinkers like iconoclast helping to inform the process) ... but I'm also a realist in not expecting the conversion process as it unfolds to be painless - I seriously doubt that the Axial Age was a quiet time; and the Protestant Reformation was certainly an extraordinarily painful age - history shows that religious power shifts can be quite tumultuous affairs ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

I seriously doubt that the Axial Age was a quiet time; and the Protestant Reformation was certainly an extraordinarily painful age - history shows that religious power shifts can be quite tumultuous affairs ...

Most power shifts are violent, even if not physically violent. I grow increasingly sympathetic to the Buddhist notion of samsara.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I grow increasingly sympathetic to the Buddhist notion of samsara.

... ahhhhh - Buddhist philosophy ... now there's one I could see putting some effort into toward adapting to the needs of an increasingly change-driven world ... but I would have to disagree with the Dalai Lama's statement to the effect that 'When science and Buddhist doctrine are contradictory, go with the science.' - that seems to me like it would just lead to the ethical vacuum mentioned earlier ... personally, I'd prefer a mythological/ideological doctrine that embraces change and provides an ethics for how to live and thrive in a world where fast-paced change is the rule ...

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

Quote:

... ahhhhh - Buddhist philosophy ... now there's one I could see putting some effort into toward adapting to the needs of an increasingly change-driven world

Me, too. I see immense potential in Buddhism and Taoism, while were on it, to inform modern western society.

Quote:

but I would have to disagree with the Dalai Lama's statement to the effect that 'When science and Buddhist doctrine are contradictory, go with the science.' - that seems to me like it would just lead to the ethical vacuum mentioned earlier

I think that statement needs some contemplation.

First, there is the obvious: go with science if science and religion are contradictory.

But we also have to think: 'what sort of religious dogma contradicts science'? The only examples I can think of are also examples of misunderstood religious teaching. So, the statement also reinforces the idea that religion and science operate on different levels, and that neither should encroach on the other's territory.

I'm not sure how his advice would lead to the aforementioned ethical vacuum.

Quote:

personally, I'd prefer a mythological/ideological doctrine that embraces change and provides an ethics for how to live and thrive in a world where fast-paced change is the rule ...

And I find myself back to Buddhism. Change is the only constant, after all. Maybe it depends on what you think it is to thrive in the world.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

Thanks for your comments. You say:

Quote:

Ah, Iconoclast, we come back to the old logical flaw so often exhibited by religious critics. How many times have I said - 'not necessarily'?

How tempting is it for me to reply: I don't know! Six?

But I won't, this is quite serious. You say:

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "centralize skeptical doubt in the face of scientific fact"

To be blunt, I'm saying that there is nothing in reality that requires there to be a God to explain it, and no evidence whatsoever of His existence. I'm saying that, in face of science, religion exists as a sceptical doubt. It's a statement about the relative epistemological weight of religious truth claims and scientific truth claims. I mean that the existence of God is a sceptical doubt of a scientific account of reality, that nonetheless, is given undue prommenance in society.

And this is the 'legitimate authority' for the exercise of political power in the UK. But you would rather not acknowledge the problem. You say:

Quote:

I would suggest, as would many others, that religion should promote the use of scientific knowledge in human affairs.

But that's not the problem. We use science - while ignoring scientific knowledge as a rule for the conduct of our affairs.

You go on to cite the Dalai Lama and Islam in the middle ages, but the former is a political appointee of an occupying communist-athiest state, and science in the middle ages was hardly what we'd call science, is it?

You infer I misunderstand religion, but I've studied this for years. I know what I'm talking about and you can't just dismiss this.

In 1233 the Church of Rome established the Inquisition and punished intellectuals as heretics. In 1632 they imprisoned Galileo and forced him to recant the conclusion that the earth orbits the sun. In 1859 Darwin had delayed the publication of 'Origin' twenty years for fear of the religious repercussions that continue to this day. And furthermore, for the protection of religious ideas we've got secular societies that allow people to believe whatever they like - and people do.

You say:

Quote:

As the condition of human life changes, the mythological context must change as well. That mythological context only becomes harmful when people forget that the mythology is indeed mythology, and not factually true or logically coherent.

You're right, but who are you speaking for? You're not speaking for Christianity or Islam that both indoctrinate children with a requirement of faith in scientifically groundless, deeply emotive ideas before the age at which they're ale to think critically. You're not speaking for a Catholic Church that's taken agen condoms and refuses to budge in face of aids and overpopualtion, or of an Umma that sends out suicide bombers to blow up its religiously defined enemies - with dreams of 72 virgins waiting on them hand, foot and finger in the afterlife.

Faith is a perversion of the normal course of human reason for poltical ends - and a betrayal of who we are on the most fundamental level. We are the thinking animal - and we'd better start thinking about where we're going as a species. Science is not just a tool - but knowledge we need to adapt to, not follow down the dark path of religious insanity, but strive toward the light of science and grow.

iconoclast.

0 Replies

The Most Important Question of our Age?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know