Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Greta »

This appears to have become a debate as to whether space exploration is morally supportable when the money could be spent fixing the Earth. It's a theoretical debate. Space exploration will almost certainly continue unabated and will probably accelerate in the foreseeable future by various nations and corporations.

The main risks to future space exploration appear to be space junk, world wars, economic depression and global scale natural disasters.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

FlashDangerpants wrote:The tax burden bit is demographically true because of falling populations and lengthier lives, however it has built in a hidden assumption of all other things remaining the same. Many of the same sources are also freaking out about robotic technologies replacing human labour. But to sustain a growing economy with a smaller working age population we must use machines to boost output, so it is rather good news for those sons that we appear set to do so. ...
Why? As if the profit-sharing isn't sorted-out why would theses sons benefit at all given they'll be out of work. All that would happen is the rich old gits won't even need them as nursemaids.
As for house prices... cities like London, New York and San Francisco have house price issues, but other rapidly growing cities such as Austin do not. The reasons are largely regulatory and the fix is comparatively simple. ...
Doubt it. As I think the only fix is to build a shit-load of cheap to buy houses to replace the loss of the council stock that started this whole malarkey.
There's a lot of platinum laying around unmined here on Earth. I recall somebody tried, or has plans to launch a space mining company based on the value of platinum they can grab from an asteroid. But the amount they need to get to pay for it with current tech is more than 20 years of global supply and there is no obvious market for their product unless they crash the price of the resource and still go bust. Our civilisation uses very small amounts of the stuff, and extending the gains of that to all people on Earth requires very small extra amounts. It' hard to see what important problem is solved by mining an asteroid for platinum. ...
How about trillions of platinum nanobots or insane amounts of optical fibre or fuel-cells. Not arguing that such finds would not destroy current markets but arguing for the Texas Oil effect upon technology. Our civilization is ever increasing its usage of minerals so far with little sign of it stopping and it's not current-tech I'm arguing for but retro-tech that apparently would have had us around Saturn by now.
Iron remains massively plentiful and is traded every day in phenomenal quantity. If you were to replace Earth based mining with space based mining on any noticeable scale, the space ships you would need to transport your stuff would be the size of ocean going super tankers and you would need many of them.
The Orion is your boy!

We could also move the asteroids to near-earth orbit first and I presume can just drop the stuff down :)
At a more basic level, I think we seem to be taking for granted a very dubious fact. ...
Oh come now! Surely we've taken more than one for granted here? :)
There is no fixed linear relationship between increasing standards of living and increasing resources consumed. Look at an advanced economy, and then compare it to a developing one. The advanced economy produces more units of gdp per unit of energy consumed (in every case) because as economies advance they need less energy to do valuable work. The amount of arable land required to feed X number of people with X calories per day is far lower in Europe than in Sub Saharan Africa. The steel used to make a Nissan car in Sunderland is all made from scrap metal which was re-forged in efficient arc furnace. Prior to the 1990s scrap could not be turned into automotive grade steel, so the steel in a 1976 Ford Cortina was produced by a messy blast furnace from virgin pig iron. ...
The messy furnace could now be in space and with enough iron to last a millennia who cares about re-forging? Although I take your point about innovation.
There are two trends at play. One is the constant universal one from all of human history - people use the available resources. The other is the one which applies to economies in intensive growth* - we use resources more efficiently, starting with the most expensive. The former is dependent on availability, the latter on problem solving. This is why we are able to deliver modern standards of living for all. Some years ago for instance, it was claimed that Indian's would never be able to afford fridges is we stopped using CFCs in their manufacture. That problem was solved, and India has a lot more fridges today than it did back then. These same things play out over and over and over again. Few people seem to recognise the next one as being based on the same faulty rationale as the last. ...
I'll guarantee that the bulk of fridges in India are still using CFC's and that all the old fridges are being sold somewhere. Still, I take your points but think that a situation of an over-abundance of a resource can lead to interesting changes. And to be honest I really think we need to have someway to deflect a comet or asteroid despite the supposed cost as the consequence far outweighs the savings.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Arising_uk wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:The tax burden bit is demographically true because of falling populations and lengthier lives, however it has built in a hidden assumption of all other things remaining the same. Many of the same sources are also freaking out about robotic technologies replacing human labour. But to sustain a growing economy with a smaller working age population we must use machines to boost output, so it is rather good news for those sons that we appear set to do so. ...
Why? As if the profit-sharing isn't sorted-out why would theses sons benefit at all given they'll be out of work. All that would happen is the rich old gits won't even need them as nursemaids.
That seems like an overreaction.
Arising_uk wrote:
As for house prices... cities like London, New York and San Francisco have house price issues, but other rapidly growing cities such as Austin do not. The reasons are largely regulatory and the fix is comparatively simple. ...
Doubt it. As I think the only fix is to build a shit-load of cheap to buy houses to replace the loss of the council stock that started this whole malarkey.
Correct, but that isn't terribly difficult to do.
Arising_uk wrote:
There's a lot of platinum laying around unmined here on Earth. I recall somebody tried, or has plans to launch a space mining company based on the value of platinum they can grab from an asteroid. But the amount they need to get to pay for it with current tech is more than 20 years of global supply and there is no obvious market for their product unless they crash the price of the resource and still go bust. Our civilisation uses very small amounts of the stuff, and extending the gains of that to all people on Earth requires very small extra amounts. It' hard to see what important problem is solved by mining an asteroid for platinum. ...
How about trillions of platinum nanobots or insane amounts of optical fibre or fuel-cells. Not arguing that such finds would not destroy current markets but arguing for the Texas Oil effect upon technology. Our civilization is ever increasing its usage of minerals so far with little sign of it stopping and it's not current-tech I'm arguing for but retro-tech that apparently would have had us around Saturn by now.
Platinum nanobots aren't part of our modern lifestyle, so that has no bearing on any of my statements. Optical fiber is made out of glass. We don't use ever increasing amounts of everything, we use what is available and if that runs out we use something else. Our civilisation used use much more leather, oak, rubber and the oil in a sperm whale's head than we do now. Those items were all replaced for most industrial uses without resort to space mining.
Arising_uk wrote:
Iron remains massively plentiful and is traded every day in phenomenal quantity. If you were to replace Earth based mining with space based mining on any noticeable scale, the space ships you would need to transport your stuff would be the size of ocean going super tankers and you would need many of them.
The Orion is your boy!

We could also move the asteroids to near-earth orbit first and I presume can just drop the stuff down :)
Have you noticed what happens to big lump of rock that drop out of the sky?
In 2014 global iron ore production was 3220 million tonnes. If you think you are going to grab an important slice of that market with iron grabbed out of space you are committing to creating most gigantic industrial complex yet seen in order to produce a product that is worth a little bit more than your average dirt.
Arising_uk wrote:
There are two trends at play. One is the constant universal one from all of human history - people use the available resources. The other is the one which applies to economies in intensive growth* - we use resources more efficiently, starting with the most expensive. The former is dependent on availability, the latter on problem solving. This is why we are able to deliver modern standards of living for all. Some years ago for instance, it was claimed that Indian's would never be able to afford fridges is we stopped using CFCs in their manufacture. That problem was solved, and India has a lot more fridges today than it did back then. These same things play out over and over and over again. Few people seem to recognise the next one as being based on the same faulty rationale as the last. ...
I'll guarantee that the bulk of fridges in India are still using CFC's and that all the old fridges are being sold somewhere. Still, I take your points but think that a situation of an over-abundance of a resource can lead to interesting changes. And to be honest I really think we need to have someway to deflect a comet or asteroid despite the supposed cost as the consequence far outweighs the savings.
That's all very well, but I think your argument is changed now? What I was addressing was a suggestion that we need to mine in space to maintain our current standards of living or extend those to people in countries where it is not yet attainable.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Arising_uk »

FlashDangerpants wrote:That seems like an overreaction. ...
Why? As the profits from the automation so far don't appear to have been more equitably distributed so why think that'll change. Add to that that this time around the replacement jobs may not appear so easily.
Correct, but that isn't terribly difficult to do. ...
Seems to be.
Platinum nanobots aren't part of our modern lifestyle, so that has no bearing on any of my statements. ...
Not so far away and platinum is used as the power source and for certain functions because it is so inert.
Optical fiber is made out of glass. ...
Made in platinum crucibles.
We don't use ever increasing amounts of everything, we use what is available and if that runs out we use something else. Our civilisation used use much more leather, oak, rubber and the oil in a sperm whale's head than we do now. Those items were all replaced for most industrial uses without resort to space mining. ...
My point I'd have thought? We use until exhausted why will that not apply to all resources.
Have you noticed what happens to big lump of rock that drop out of the sky? ...
:) Hopefully no but point taken. Looks like space elevators or parachutes it is.
In 2014 global iron ore production was 3220 million tonnes. If you think you are going to grab an important slice of that market with iron grabbed out of space you are committing to creating most gigantic industrial complex yet seen in order to produce a product that is worth a little bit more than your average dirt. ...
And yet one paper using a modest 2% exponential growth in steel has the available iron mines depleted in 60 odd years. But like I say, I'm not thinking about the markets but what a massive glut of resources would do to society and technologies, a la what the Texas oil glut did.
That's all very well, but I think your argument is changed now? ...
Just thinking aloud.
What I was addressing was a suggestion that we need to mine in space to maintain our current standards of living or extend those to people in countries where it is not yet attainable.
And I'm not sure that's been addressed yet as if we use the American model they apparently are 5% of the world using 24% of the worlds energy and resources, how can we extend this to everyone?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Arising_uk wrote:
FlashDangerpants wrote:That seems like an overreaction. ...
Why? As the profits from the automation so far don't appear to have been more equitably distributed so why think that'll change. Add to that that this time around the replacement jobs may not appear so easily.
Basic economic history.

Marx made a similar complaint, and that was already out of date when he wrote it. People are reacting as if automation was only just invented, like steam engines and combine harvesters never happened. The history of these things always results in both higher wages and lower costs of most of the of the stuff you buy with those wages, and also with lost jobs which get replaced by new jobs providing goods and services not previously on the market.
Arising_uk wrote:
Correct, but that isn't terribly difficult to do. ...
Seems to be.

It isn't though. Again, this is basic economics as well. You may observe that house prices are high, and that capitalists intent on profit like to make stuff they can sell for high prices. And then the tendency of markets to observe where high returns on investment occur and pile in. After that you get extra supply which brings down prices (unless the extra supply itself causes an extra demand which I don't think is the case here as a rule. Otherwise Sunderland would have higher house prices than it does.

So if the problem of house prices in a certain area is bad enough that it requires fixing... All the state has to do is allow the problem to fix itself by looking for areas in which the balance of incentives can be seen to be preventing what is written above from applying.
Arising_uk wrote:
We don't use ever increasing amounts of everything, we use what is available and if that runs out we use something else. Our civilisation used use much more leather, oak, rubber and the oil in a sperm whale's head than we do now. Those items were all replaced for most industrial uses without resort to space mining. ...
My point I'd have thought? We use until exhausted why will that not apply to all resources.
That's a bit of a lazy interpretation. We didn't stop mining sperm whales for oil because we ran out, we stopped because electric light is better than whale oil lamps. I'm fairly sure we stopped using oak to build our battle ships because metal ones are rather better. And I'm relatively certain that nobody wants to go back to using leather buckets.

What gave you the idea that we ran out of leather?
Arising_uk wrote:
In 2014 global iron ore production was 3220 million tonnes. If you think you are going to grab an important slice of that market with iron grabbed out of space you are committing to creating most gigantic industrial complex yet seen in order to produce a product that is worth a little bit more than your average dirt. ...
And yet one paper using a modest 2% exponential growth in steel has the available iron mines depleted in 60 odd years.
Those things are always written by people who don't understand the difference in mining between a recoverable resource and a load of dirt with stuff in it that has of yet no net present value. That's a long topic, and it involves accountancy practices. I'm hoping you won't force me to go down that rabbit hole because it's immensely boring. The gist of it though is that proven resources of any extractive industry should not be treated as an estimate of the amount of stuff that is available. This same mistake was made by the Peak Oil crowd a few years back - I hope we are at least agreed that was a mistake.
Arising_uk wrote:But like I say, I'm not thinking about the markets but what a massive glut of resources would do to society and technologies, a la what the Texas oil glut did.
Did the ~Texas Oil Glut come before the invention of the technologies that made use of it, or was it driven by a desire to provide fuel for existing technologies?
There have been many tech advances which have made use of some commonly available thing which wasn't being put to either any or in some case any very valuable use. The plough for instance, which turned low value land into arable gold. Labour saving technologies such as the aforementioned steam engine turned expensive unproductive labour into expense highly productive labour.

I think of plenty of other examples of that. But what I can't personally think of ever once happening is somebody sending out a hugely expensive expedition to recover a load of stuff that has little value so that they can subsequently get round to finding a use for it.
Arising_uk wrote:
What I was addressing was a suggestion that we need to mine in space to maintain our current standards of living or extend those to people in countries where it is not yet attainable.
And I'm not sure that's been addressed yet as if we use the American model they apparently are 5% of the world using 24% of the worlds energy and resources, how can we extend this to everyone?
Why would we use the American model of waste? Is the lifestyle of people in Sweden not as modern or comfortable as America's?
And where did that "and resources" come from? If somebody is writing that America uses 25% of "resources" they should stop that.

Seriously, we don't make progress by becoming more wasteful, and we never actually have. Look at patents and inventions, or at least at the ones which make any real long term difference. When fuel is a problem or an expense, fuel saving inventions are more valuable, and so investment is driven towards developing them. When fuel is cheap but labour is costly, the same effect drives investment in r&d in that direction. There was a big academic study of this a few years back, looking at 19th C patents in the US and Britain. In America where there was a lot of wide open land and huge forests, the tendency was to develop labour saving patents. In Britain, which was more crowded and less forested, the focus was more on fuel saving ones. The focus in each case is to stop something expensive being wasted unproductively.

This is as you would expect, people put more effort into solving real problems than non-problems, and the problems of today are typically rather preferred to those of a distant future. This is further illustrated by the fact that spoons have been around for thousands of years, and forks for many centuries, but somehow the spork was only invented much more recently.

So space mining for platinum in the hope it becomes something we can use a lot more of if there is a lot more of it, is your idea for how to approach this whole thing of problems and solutions. It just isn't the efficient one. Some other, and rather more practical ones include...
Self driving cars (nearly all cars are wasted nearly all of the time because they are parked far more than they are driven).
Self driving cars (a wasteful percentage of urban land is devoted to parking space for cars)
Self driving cars (the car industry wastefully employs far too many people and holds excess manufacturing capacity for the value of its products to society)
Lab grown meat, or better vegetable based fake meat products - I don't care which as long as they are tasty (meat industry emissions and water usage are very high, these technologies promise to cut that hugely - presumably one will succeed and the other will fail, but which doesn't seem to matter much)
Any number of renewable energy options (again, there's too many in the pipeline for them all to work out, sobad luck wave energy generation, that one is a shit idea)
Multiple nuclear fission options (molten salt reactors, better fast breeders, those mini nuclear power stations that Bill Gates likes).
Nuclear fusion with deuterium or something - if it ever works, it sounds pretty cool.
Hyperloops - ok that ones stupid, and doesn't really solve any problems, but every age needs its Concorde right?
Better 3d printing / additive manufacturing (You know Adidas is opening its first shoe factory in Germany for decades soon? Well it will use machines to put the shoes together which used to be a dangerous and nasty job for Bangladeshi children. Again, those sort of thing cuts waste on a large scale - those kids should be going to school, and shoes can stop being shipped across oceans for no good reason)

Now it really doesn't matter that some of the above will never work out. If they fail it is probably because something not in that list fixes the same issues better.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Nick_A »

Michael James
One of the goals of this post is to make a persuasive case that progress is a chimera – an illusion that has long outlived its “best before” date. Furthermore, in order to stand a chance of creating a humane and reasonably prosperous new order whenever the current order goes kaput, I maintain that a post-progressive outlook on politics and philosophy will be direly needed. Perhaps this post can spark a discussion on post-progressivism – a discussion that, as far as I know, isn’t occurring anywhere else. Yet even if this doesn’t transpire, I welcome all feedback, especially any reasoned criticism of my ideas. Indeed, I find the best way to learn new perspectives and to sharpen an argument is through spirited debate, so I look forward to your critiques (should you have any).
"Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well." – Socrates
The progressive outlook defines progress by the comforts of life. Wisdom defines progress by the quality of our death. If Socrates is right, humanity cannot be seen to have made much objective progress as a species.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote:
"Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well." – Socrates
The progressive outlook defines progress by the comforts of life. Wisdom defines progress by the quality of our death. If Socrates is right, humanity cannot be seen to have made much objective progress as a species.
It's a nice quote but I disagree that it suggests a decline in the quality of humanity. Try to think to another century that would have been better to live in than this one. In the 1890s they were still sending children to work and die in coal mines for almost no money - and they were genteel times compared with what came before.

There has been a loss of interest in wisdom of late as we become enthralled by all the new knowledge and connectivity that's become available. It's understandable, given human nature, rather than an indictment. It's a phase of growth. Life, being as it is, grows first and then tries to cope with what happens. We are near the end of this major growth phase, it seems.

The myth of endless growth is just about done, which brings us to the resource squeeze stage, to be followed by the conflict stage, which will eventually be followed by the remorseful "never again" stage by the survivors, and that experience will make society a little wiser than before during the reconstruction stage.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
"Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well." – Socrates
The progressive outlook defines progress by the comforts of life. Wisdom defines progress by the quality of our death. If Socrates is right, humanity cannot be seen to have made much objective progress as a species.
It's a nice quote but I disagree that it suggests a decline in the quality of humanity. Try to think to another century that would have been better to live in than this one. In the 1890s they were still sending children to work and die in coal mines for almost no money - and they were genteel times compared with what came before.

There has been a loss of interest in wisdom of late as we become enthralled by all the new knowledge and connectivity that's become available. It's understandable, given human nature, rather than an indictment. It's a phase of growth. Life, being as it is, grows first and then tries to cope with what happens. We are near the end of this major growth phase, it seems.

The myth of endless growth is just about done, which brings us to the resource squeeze stage, to be followed by the conflict stage, which will eventually be followed by the remorseful "never again" stage by the survivors, and that experience will make society a little wiser than before during the reconstruction stage.
“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

You define progress by the results of the outer man. Socrates defines it by the quality of the inner man and the ability for the outer man to reflect the inner man. The modern success of the outer man starves out the inner man. That is not progress other than for McDonald's.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote:
Greta wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
The progressive outlook defines progress by the comforts of life. Wisdom defines progress by the quality of our death. If Socrates is right, humanity cannot be seen to have made much objective progress as a species.
It's a nice quote but I disagree that it suggests a decline in the quality of humanity. Try to think to another century that would have been better to live in than this one. In the 1890s they were still sending children to work and die in coal mines for almost no money - and they were genteel times compared with what came before.

There has been a loss of interest in wisdom of late as we become enthralled by all the new knowledge and connectivity that's become available. It's understandable, given human nature, rather than an indictment. It's a phase of growth. Life, being as it is, grows first and then tries to cope with what happens. We are near the end of this major growth phase, it seems.

The myth of endless growth is just about done, which brings us to the resource squeeze stage, to be followed by the conflict stage, which will eventually be followed by the remorseful "never again" stage by the survivors, and that experience will make society a little wiser than before during the reconstruction stage.
“Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.” ~ Socrates

You define progress by the results of the outer man. Socrates defines it by the quality of the inner man and the ability for the outer man to reflect the inner man. The modern success of the outer man starves out the inner man. That is not progress other than for McDonald's.
You appear not to have comprehended. Try again.

I was talking about societies, which like individuals, go through phases of development. At certain times and places, eg. ancient Greece. Sometimes other aspects grow more or less - structure, material, certain areas of focus. Obviously we have been in a material and technological growth phase for a while at the expense of wisdom. This is not a catastrophe, just a phase dictated by the conditions. Wisdom tends to come after a storm and during times of plenty. When society structures are in the midst of rapid change people have more practical concerns and wisdom is relegated as a luxury of the privileged.

Yet what of coarsening public sensibilities, the continuing dumbing down of culture? We are becoming ever more hive-like.

Simply, big machines largely need simple, robust, compliant parts. Intelligence and depth of understanding is needed,
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Nick_A wrote:
"Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well." – Socrates
I don't believe that quote is from Socrates or even Plato, it doesn't look convincing at all.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Nick_A »

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Nick_A wrote:
"Science says 'We must live,' and seeks the means of prolonging, increasing, facilitating and amplifying life, of making it tolerable and acceptable, wisdom says 'We must die,' and seeks how to make us die well." – Socrates
I don't believe that quote is from Socrates or even Plato, it doesn't look convincing at all.
Maybe the quote isn't exact. I don't know. The point is that Socrates' willingness to die the good death is well known

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6835
As Plato recounted in the Apology and the Crito, Socrates makes it clear that he prefers to keep to his moral principles and die sooner rather than violate these principles and die somewhat later. The account of his death presents Socrates as courageously accepting death—he freely drinks the hemlock and philosophizes as the hemlock kills him. He also expresses a principle defiance against his accusers and a respectful defiance towards the state. In regards to the state, he claims that he will obey the state, unless he is ordered to cease engaging in philosophy—he cannot accept that order.
This is well known. Actually the value of a conscious death is far deeper than morality but for now, the good death in accordance with principles often seems contrary to how secularism defines the good life.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote:This is well known. Actually the value of a conscious death is far deeper than morality but for now, the good death in accordance with principles often seems contrary to how secularism defines the good life.
It is not "secularists" who outlaw assisted suicide and euthanasia for the terminally ill, but theists.

As for the healthy and able facing existential decisions, people routinely risk their health for what they love in numerous dangerous vocations. eg. doctors treating those with contagious diseases. Many creative people live fast and "leave a pretty corpse" and the public accepts that certain personality types are like supernovas - they burn brightly but die quickly. There is fair general acceptance (if still overly conservative and influenced by superstition and dogma) of the many different ways one can lead a "good life".
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote:
Nick_A wrote:This is well known. Actually the value of a conscious death is far deeper than morality but for now, the good death in accordance with principles often seems contrary to how secularism defines the good life.
It is not "secularists" who outlaw assisted suicide and euthanasia for the terminally ill, but theists.

As for the healthy and able facing existential decisions, people routinely risk their health for what they love in numerous dangerous vocations. eg. doctors treating those with contagious diseases. Many creative people live fast and "leave a pretty corpse" and the public accepts that certain personality types are like supernovas - they burn brightly but die quickly. There is fair general acceptance (if still overly conservative and influenced by superstition and dogma) of the many different ways one can lead a "good life".
You are referring to an intentional death. I am referring to a conscious death. They are not the same. A suicide is an intentional death. The crucifixion was a conscious death. These are two completely different concepts.

The death of or intentional elimination of Scott Hughes' was neither. It was just stupidity.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote:You are referring to an intentional death. I am referring to a conscious death. They are not the same. A suicide is an intentional death. The crucifixion was a conscious death. These are two completely different concepts.
Okay. I can see why one might see that as an ideal if they believe that cause and effect continues after death and that the way they die is pivotal to the next chapter.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote:
Nick_A wrote:You are referring to an intentional death. I am referring to a conscious death. They are not the same. A suicide is an intentional death. The crucifixion was a conscious death. These are two completely different concepts.
Okay. I can see why one might see that as an ideal if they believe that cause and effect continues after death and that the way they die is pivotal to the next chapter.
Dying to self is a basic Christian concept. Only a rare few can live in accordance with this goal which is why there are so few Christians. Who is capable of dying to their imagination? The Eastern religions contain the same value and it is denied there as well. Yet the conscious death is the ultimate expression of dying to ones imagination and what it means to live.
John 12: 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
This is truly extraordinary psychology and relates to the concept of progress which stimulates imagination the secularist strives to preserve. Who can consciously carry their cross and consciously die to their imagination for the sake of becoming alive? Only a rare few and they will always be hated by the world which lives by imagination.
Post Reply