1
   

Can we save our planet by reasoning together?

 
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 10:24 am
fresco wrote:
Okay coberst... so specifically which "ego and social centric forces" are impeding your rational thinking in this instance such that you start a dialogue focused on "saving the planet" and then immediately wander off that point ?


A child clinging to her mother's skirt is not an uncommon site. A child with wide eyes and a look of apprehension seeking security and assurance by remaining very close to his mother (his center of balance) is similar to the centricities we all carry forward and often remain with us until we die.

Our centricities, our centers of irrational influence, are often the ego and the group.Of the two I suspect sociocentricity causes us and our community the greatest harm. When our ego leads us to do stupid things the harm done is limited because we generally affect only our self and maybe a few others. Sociocentricity, however, can easily be identified as the cause of the destruction and death of millions.

Ethno centric is one form of socio centric attitudes and behavior. Ethno centric is placing ones own race as the privileged group. This form of socio centric behavior is perhaps the most predominate and lethal form of social bias. Regardless of which group we belong to I suspect that one of the most important things one might do to make the world a better place in which to live is for all of us to become self-conscious of these innate human tendencies.

Basic concepts become weapons of warfare within social groups. Basic words such as capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, freedom, oligarchy, plutocracy, evil, patriotism, terrorism, etc. are twisted and maneuvered to confuse, distort, and to excite members of a group one way or another.

It appears that the key question of an egocentric is "How can I get what I want and avoid having to change in any fundamental way?"
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 01:50 pm
coberst,

When clinging to the skirt, check which "mother" is wearing it :wink: .
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 02:50 pm
Kudos, cob, you're engaged in a real debate. I think that's a first, at least here on A2K.

But on the issue...

When I read the thread title I assumed that saving the planet was referring to the climate changes that we have inflicted, and that can potentially be catastrophic for the survival of our societies in a relatively short time.

If that is the case, then I'd say that the only real solution to this problem seems to be a coordinated effort involving everyone. It seems to me that the only thing that can make any real impact is a dramatic change of lifestyle, especially in the industrial countries.

But JL asks a very important question that should perhaps be answered before the question of the thread: Can we reason together?
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 04:01 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
Kudos, cob, you're engaged in a real debate. I think that's a first, at least here on A2K.

But on the issue...

When I read the thread title I assumed that saving the planet was referring to the climate changes that we have inflicted, and that can potentially be catastrophic for the survival of our societies in a relatively short time.

If that is the case, then I'd say that the only real solution to this problem seems to be a coordinated effort involving everyone. It seems to me that the only thing that can make any real impact is a dramatic change of lifestyle, especially in the industrial countries.

But JL asks a very important question that should perhaps be answered before the question of the thread: Can we reason together?


If you read my post to fresco you will see that I do not think that Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is a far different thing than discussion or debate. My message has always been that we cannot solve our problems until we become much more intellectually sophisticated than we now are.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Apr, 2007 04:18 pm
...anybody brought a kite...?
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 03:38 am
Coberst

Maybe "more intellectually sophisticated" simply means "better at rethorically dancing around eachother".

Like I said earlier in the thread, during the drafting of the official UN report on climate changes, USA was one of the countries most reluctant to accept the findings. If they had their way I have no doubt they would have buried the report entirely.

It's not about intellectual sophistication. It is about conscience and facing facts. 4,8 litre gas engines and one car each is perhaps one of the biggest problems that every individual mush take seriously, and it's not only US citizens that have a hard time accepting that. Before we start reasoning together I think we need to start reasoning with ourselves.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 07:01 am
Cyracuz wrote:
Coberst

Maybe "more intellectually sophisticated" simply means "better at rethorically dancing around eachother".

Like I said earlier in the thread, during the drafting of the official UN report on climate changes, USA was one of the countries most reluctant to accept the findings. If they had their way I have no doubt they would have buried the report entirely.

It's not about intellectual sophistication. It is about conscience and facing facts. 4,8 litre gas engines and one car each is perhaps one of the biggest problems that every individual mush take seriously, and it's not only US citizens that have a hard time accepting that. Before we start reasoning together I think we need to start reasoning with ourselves.


I agree, the ability to reason is important in all aspects of life. Illusion appears to be important to humans also, and that reality is displayed by the US ignoring the truth of Global Warming for so long.

That is why I am such a scold about everyone learning CT.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 08:22 am
I too used to believe that the human contribution to "global warming" had been scientifically established and that the USA was dragging its feet. However, it seems that the scientific jury "is still out" or at best "divided" about the "significance" of the human factor and that "the green vote" is now driving the issue. But I re-iterate that irrespective of the "significance" of the human factor in "gobal warming" this is a subsidiary issue to "saving the planet". The "planet" may be in "no danger" and homo-sapiens may simply have to adapt as it has in the past and lose a few of its members in the process.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 11:21 am
Which is exactly the point. The planet itself could only be endangered by thermonuclear war on a vast scale--otherwise, sufficient stupidity on the part of the human race will only result in the planet shrugging us off, and the evolutionary process would continue without us. We would not be acting to "save the planet," and talk of stewardship is merely human conceit, we would only be acting to avoid destroying our civilization.

Fresco, i am amaze to see that you are still attempting to "reason together" with Coberst--an activity which i long ago came to regard as futile.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 12:54 pm
Setanta wrote:
Which is exactly the point. The planet itself could only be endangered by thermonuclear war on a vast scale--otherwise, sufficient stupidity on the part of the human race will only result in the planet shrugging us off, and the evolutionary process would continue without us. We would not be acting to "save the planet," and talk of stewardship is merely human conceit, we would only be acting to avoid destroying our civilization.

Fresco, i am amaze to see that you are still attempting to "reason together" with Coberst--an activity which i long ago came to regard as futile.


For two people to reason together they must share a common pool of knowledge. I suspect our common pool of shared knowledge is too small.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 02:12 pm
Setanta,

My post was more of a rejoinder to Cyracuz who was "on topic" than an attempt to follow Coberst the Crusader into his pedagogical wasteland! Don't you think he bears some resemblance to one of those knights in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ?

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail.htm
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 03:01 pm
Hmmmm . . .

I don't know, i rather like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, whereas . . . well, nevermind . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 03:03 pm
coberst wrote:
For two people to reason together they must share a common pool of knowledge. I suspect our common pool of shared knowledge is too small.


Given the horseshit you posted about "stewardship" at the beginning of this thread, and other examples in other threads, such as your bullshit contention about Southern military superiority in the American Civil War--yes, i don't consider myself limited to the puddle which passes for knowledge at your house.
0 Replies
 
coberst
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 03:44 pm
Setanta wrote:
coberst wrote:
For two people to reason together they must share a common pool of knowledge. I suspect our common pool of shared knowledge is too small.


Given the horseshit you posted about "stewardship" at the beginning of this thread, and other examples in other threads, such as your bullshit contention about Southern military superiority in the American Civil War--yes, i don't consider myself limited to the puddle which passes for knowledge at your house.


It appears that we agree that the pool of knowledge we share is too small for us to reason together.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 05:10 pm
....at this point "Tim the Enchanter" blasts him.... Laughing

(See the movie clip)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 05:15 pm
You crack me up, Fresco . . . have a Fresca . . .

http://alamo.nmsu.edu/~lockhart/EPSodas/Chapter8/8c/fresca.jpg
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Apr, 2007 05:23 pm
.......NICE !
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 03:26 am
Yes, the planet itself is perhaps in no danger. Actually, it's a little strange to even say it. A little like saying, "this mountain is in danger, we must rescue this mountain". If anything, it's our perception that is threatened in such a scenarion.

I believe the real issue of this thread is that perhaps our human societies as we know them are in danger. But history has shown us that compared to the time humans have existed in their current form, all societies have been relatively short lived. All civilizations have crumbled, and humanity has been thrown into chaos from which it would rise and form new societies based on newly revised ideals. Another interesting question to be asked it perhaps; is this a bad thing?
0 Replies
 
snookered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Apr, 2007 09:28 pm
Cyracuz wrote:
Here's what we need to do:

Park our cars and throw away the keys.
Ground our planes and disassemble them.
Stop finding and using oil.
Stop mass production of **** we don't need.
Plant a tree.
Take a nap.
Lighten up.
Calm down.


Great...we are all saved! How ridiculous...Ohh I know your making a joke. But just in case.
1) remember to take you house key off the key ring.
2) Why disasemble the planes?
3) Stop using oil...well there goes just about every thing we use.
4) If we didn't need it, we wouldn't mass produce it.
5) How would we get this tree to the house?
6) take a nap? It is 120 degrees in my house.
7) Lighten up? I soaked with sweat from dragging that tree home.
8) Calm down, ****, I will die in 7 days.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Apr, 2007 02:36 am
Laughing


1) Good advice that.
2) A flight over a distance of approx 500 kilometers releases as much pollution into the air as would driving 5000 kilometres. So don't fly. Take the bus.
3) I should have limited that to the fossilized fuel we dig up and burn in enormous amounts. It would be great. No more asphalt, no more rubber, no more lots of things I think we'd be better off without.
4) If we didn't mass produce it, we wouldn't need it.
5) Doh... Plant a seed, and sit a watch it become a tree. With fruit if you prefer.
6) Then take a nap outside. Under a tree, or on the beach.
7) Again, I said plant a tree, not uproot one.
8) If you'll die in 7 days, will you really spend the last week working to earn something you will not get a chance to enjoy?

I do not know if we'd be saved by my suggestions, but I do think that I'd like that world a lot more. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:41:04