31
   

Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

 
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 04:40 am
@Caroline,
You sound like a lot of work. Can you just read and learn for a while?
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 04:46 am
@ossobuco,
Read what, i read and I dont learn nothing from these guys and I'm certainly not going to bother now, and yeah I am a lot of work if you can put up with me.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 06:54 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

In the US, "environmentalism" has tken some major hits by a looney right wing branch of the GOP and its hired shock jocks. In actuality, the environmental movement owes much of its birth and developmen t to the GOP. Guys like Limbo want to divorce themselves from this legacy opf GOP politics and they want to bury the memories of the HEinz, Scrantons, Chaffees, Nixon,Ford etc.
When environmentalism is no longer a dirty word and these attack dogs are put in theoir cages pwermanently, maybe we can develop an environmental outlook thats built on sustainable development, good stewardship, ramping down sprawl and making environmental policy good economics.

Somewhere between the strident bullshit of bothextremes lies some sense.
And how would you go about doing that, I mean building on sustainable development and make environmental policy good economics, come on you're the expert and I want to know, whether you think I'm worth it or not because this is one of the best things said in this thread and I want to know please. Thanks
NoOne phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:12 am
@Caroline,
If one really cares about what man is doing, then the only rational response is to try and help man think better. How we think, and how well we think determines what we do.
Or in a metaphor, the mark on the forehead and on the hands.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:20 am
@farmerman,
Good advice. Thanks.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 08:52 am
@NoOne phil,
NoOne phil wrote:

If one really cares about what man is doing, then the only rational response is to try and help man think better. How we think, and how well we think determines what we do.
Or in a metaphor, the mark on the forehead and on the hands.

That is a nice thought; but it is out of time... First of all, a sense of the future and of consequences are signs of intelligence which not all that many people possess... And then, the economic system has an extremely short term view of reality which those who run us like dogs want to shorten up completely...

All there is for some is the next quarter, but for the guy on the line who has to pee, thinking beyond the next bathroom break is impossible... People start work and finish work thinking of nothing other than quiting time, so their lives can begin... Do you think it is possible for such people to actually concieve of a future???...

When a hopeless people gets so far gone that they can only look at the ground and avoid each other's eyes because they have been reduced to slavery; for them, the horizon is as far distant as the stars... The future is inconceivable without us, but if we can barely survive the moment, what hope has the future of intruding upon our thoughts??? We are in survival mode... The future better look out for itself...
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 09:28 am
@Caroline,
Quote:
Somewhere between the strident bullshit of bothextremes lies some sense.


What's good about that Caroline? It's idiotic. It's empty. It's a remark from somebody with nothing to say but having a need to say something.

And the "looney right wing branch of the GOP" is nowhere near any extreme. And neither is the other end.

Quote:
maybe we can develop an environmental outlook thats built on sustainable development, good stewardship, ramping down sprawl and making environmental policy good economics.


Here again is the vacant noise. Sounding so responsible and patronising and tolerant like a bloke trying to calm down a fight in a pub but refusing to allocate the female the fight is over to one of the brawlers.

We can all agree. Even first year infants school classes. Not even daring to enjoin us to do these things. To insist we do. "Maybe we can" eh? This is a man who has boats. Who thinks nothing of a 40 mile round trip for a pizza. And no wonder with 40 miles of posing to himself at the wheel of his gas-guzzler as being totally in charge of his destiny.

And two "good"s in one sentence is a bit of a liberty especially when you consider it's what fm means by good. Ask the people who live in the suburban "sprawl" (implying out-of-control, degenerate, anarchic lacksadaisicalness--like mud when the mountainside gives way). See whether they think it "good" for it to be "damped down". Ramping it up is what they seem to want to me.

"Good" economics, according to the laws of synergy, will be as much at the cutting edge of economic science as whatever it is now that's at the cutting edge of modern physics. It will be as good as us clever little buggers have so far been able to make it. But fm only thinks in terms of inanimate matter and soulless organisms.

It is a statement only the desperate would give heed to. People with nothing but hope left and that sorely tried. A faint last chance. Armchair Oval Office stuff. Someone offering to lead us to the Promised Land when most of us know that we are already in it from any historical point of view let alone an evolutionary one.

Empty kettles make most noise it is often said, so imagine a tipper wagon full of empty kettles unloading into a steel chute and you have a neat metaphor for this debate.

What it is actually is a vaguely felt yearning for the lost Arcadia, which so many artists have conjured up wonderfully, and a reaching towards some mystical, perfected utopia which other artists have attempted to depict, usually through the eyes of a controlling type. He's read all the wrong books you see. He was reading self-improving stuff at the age I was reading for thrills. And self-improvers have a big problem. It is that they improve to a point where nobody wants any more improvement out of them. They are side-lined or put out to grass. So then they start trying to improve us lot with rhetorical flourishes which have no relation to, nor regard for, the reality. Which is where animate souls seek to work things out as best they can in all the circumstances, which are many, multiform, and look as near to irreducible complexity as makes no difference.

fm is not where the buck stops. And neither are you. He waits in ambush for those who are where the buck stops, and make what he considers a mistake, and jumps on them with what they should have done and where they went wrong, interlarded with not very discreet hints of his general all-round excellence. He once predicted the result of a football game the day after it was played.

But you have asked him the right question. I await his answer with anticipation.

0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 10:35 am
@farmerman,
Neither did I imply that you said so, climate has always changed its tautological assessment, but unfortunately sides have grown to so extreme positions that everything is seen as an aggression ... CO2 debate its actually the wrong approach to the problem, reason why I posted the video on exponential growth once that´s what really worries me...odd incompatible concepts like sustainable growth should be the main frame for this debate if to be out of politics and demagoguery as we should, nevertheless and to directly reply on your genetic diversity remark just to say that Polar Bear problem although being on the spot light for the sound bytes is a very small part concerning the mass extinction of at least one third of the present existing species, don´t you think you are being deliberately over simplistic ?...

...I am more worried with coral, tropical and the north forest rings their Ecosystems and the overall impact of their collapse...

Soil erosion is a problem far beyond legislation enforcement... and just to put it clear, you and I well know that actually is the growth on the demand who dictates the policy not just in America but specially on rapidly developing countries...

...Plastic and Ocean pollution are probably the worst nightmare and the toughest to solve on the long term, its man caused undeniably and it needs to be addressed quickly...what is to be said on that ?

...well, that´s all for now, thanks for your input and I will be looking forward to hear it from you...see you around !

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:39 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:

I heard the other day that one country produces 152 million tons of raw sewage a year. The sea is our dumping ground. It's only a matter of time before it bites us on the bum, what I dont get is that nobody seems to give a hoot.
P.S. How come I've got a green thumbs up on all my posts.


I honestly do not know what this has to do with philosophy (at least directly), but hey we can talk about it.

I think the problem is that we are the only ones that care as to whether or not the planet is "being destroyed".

By the way, I am pretty sure that the planet is not being destroyed, if by planet we mean the entire Earth (which only makes sense). It would take something along the lines of a Death Star to do that. Should I post a Youtube video of Star Wars to show a potential re-ennactment of the scenario?

What is happening now is simply a change, a paradigmatic shift, and we are at the center of it. Pretty exciting eh?

My definition comes from the dubious source known as Wickedpedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_planet
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:45 pm
Our planet is being destroyed, does anybody care?

Well, a course not . . . say, pass me that copper, will ya? Is there any titanium left?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:47 pm
@georgeob1,
To put FM's argument in terms a Navy man will readily understand, never wrestle with a pig--you'll just get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:56 pm
@Setanta,
It is an old Navy saying (probably borrowed from someone else). The version I remember goes.... "Don't get in a fight with a pig. You both get dirty, but the ppig likes it." Too bad I forgot !
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 12:56 pm
@Setanta,
There's no need to be a Navy man to know that old, tired, washed and wrung out cliche. Everyman knows it. Which might explain why they all keep on doing it.

It means its a downer to Setanta is getting dirty and he doesn't care for the pig to have some fun.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 03:55 pm
@Setanta,
I have been noticing for awhile now that most of your posts resume to this cheap middle age sad side comments...must be some sort of sexual frustration going on with you...you are just a sad phantom cartoon hiding behind a keyboard...get a life ! (a boy or a girlfriend...it may help you get over it !)
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  3  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:05 pm
@Caroline,
farmerman wrote:

Somewhere between the strident bullshit of both extremes lies some sense.
Very true.

When it comes to conducting our affairs with a little intelligence, it's not like we don't have any experience with that. In the US, we have an Environmental Protection Agency which has teeth... and we have universities full of young people being taught how to channel their love for the natural world into meaningful action.

We just came out of a horrendous century. We have a heritage of putting national security above doing things the smart way. Thus we have ginormous heaps of polluted material around Detroit, a problem with barrels of radioactive material that are forming hydrogen gas right below the lids. And the list goes on..... and on.....

uh... and on. Sometime ago some news commentator talked about "problem overload." Where all the problems start causing the eyes to glaze over.

Good question, though, what does any of this have to do with philosophy?

Philosophical scenario #1:
Imagine zapping into the year 2510. Look around you... whatever you see... think about this: you can dream of a thousand other ways it could have turned out. But what you're looking at is the one way it did.

Whatever you're seeing had a 100% chance of happening.

So there's no need to be in turmoil over what ought to be... what other people should be doing. They're all part of a symphony that plays out according to it's inner logic.... whether your heart is filled with pain or joy.

Philosophical scenario #2:
You can't zap into the year 2510. That makes no sense. From your point of view (and what other do you really have?) there is no 2510. Your life is here, now. Look around you. As you walk through the world, take note of the sights and sounds that meet you. What of it offends you? What of it do you love? Take those reactions to the world and let your passion set you in motion. Follow your heart.

There's no need to grieve because we don't know the right way to do it. We do the best we can. And in this, we're the same as every generation that's ever lived.

I miss you Caroline!!! See you 'round the bend.... (and ignore all narky comments... life's too short for that!)
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:14 pm
@Arjuna,
Good to see you Arjuna, keep in touch with me via my email, I posted it at the tail end of the philforum check in thread, would love to chat with you. Are you doing any painting or any arty stuff at the mo?

Thanks for your post it is very informative as always, I enjoy your posts and thanks for your support when that [email protected] called me a snit, you're a mate.Smile

Tally ho! See ya on the flipside;)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Nov, 2010 07:28 pm
@Arjuna,
Ah, there you are...I was thinking that you migrated somewhere by now...busy I guess...nice scenarios you have there !
Moon Guardian
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 09:12 am
@Caroline,
I definately care Caroline. Doesn't matter if you believe in Global Warming or not the fact that it exists as a physical reality in our everyday lives means we must fight for our beloved home.
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Nov, 2010 06:13 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Ah, there you are...I was thinking that you migrated somewhere by now...busy I guess...nice scenarios you have there !
Hi dude! Yes, I have been busy. Been reading Locke, Kant, and Anna Karenina. Interesting combo.

I've been thinking about the idea of failure.

If you start with the idea that there can only be one outcome of any situation, then there is no distinction between possible and actual. There's only one possibility, which you don't know until the situation is resolved.

There's this solitaire game I've played billions of times... it allows you to play the same game over and make different choices. By doing that, I got this idea of the unwinnable game. Sometimes the cards come out that way.... which is something you couldn't know unless you do play the same game over and over.

So I might say of my own failure: well, if I'd only been smarter, or stronger, or whatever... then I wouldn't have failed. But my shortage was one of the variables... it was part of how the cards came out. That would suggest that a case of failure.. was essentially an unwinnable game.

So what's the value of beating myself up in such a case? It's part of learning something which can be used the next time around. So in this, the idea of past failure becomes one the variables in the next game.

Interestingly that can go two ways... it can give me an advantage, or it can make me choke... I don't know if they have that phrase in Portuguese. It means that when the pressure's on... I lose my expertise. It can result from failing once. The only way out of choking is to clear your mind of the past failure... sports psychology.

What remains is the criteria for failure... the ideal. I'm still working on understanding the angles on that. The image of the ideal doesn't refer to anything we'd call substantial. I've been pondering the Aristotle notion: greater generality goes with decreasing substantiality.

Anyway... hope you're doing well... see ya!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Nov, 2010 02:03 pm
@Arjuna,
Hi Arj ! Doing well thanks.

...it depends on what you take substantial to mean...I don´t take substance as matter or any other particular description...substance is that which gives rise to manifestation and beyond that its pointless to say anything...maybe you meant that the more general and abstract the more objectification or functionality give instead rise to that which is not to be justified but that justifies in its place...

...yes we do have "choke" in Portuguese (engasgar) and I agree that such attitude its pointless...nevertheless we move has we move...and I reckon that in order to move on, you have first to be at rest, given if you already are moving, you don´t really really move on...

Have a nice day and stop by more often this is getting boring with only half a dozen interesting posters saying anything worth looking at...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 07:14:01