These are major assumptions that make sense

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:34 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:39 pm
What if my moralistic framework says it is right and your moralistic framework says it is wrong ?
Do you have a methodology that will resolve such a dilemma to mutual satisfaction every time ?
Yes. War....

...HYPOTHETICALLY: If China is contributing 80% of emissions to global warming and shows no intent of slowing down or concern for the existential threat this poses to all of mankind then going to war with China would be justifiable.

Why? Trolley problem.

Do nothing and go extinct.
Do something and lose the war, then go extinct.
Do something and win the war, then lower the risk of extinction.

The gamble is obvious.
What an incredibly myopic view.

How about we approach the solution without using rhetoric that has the word “war” in it?...

...especially a war that is almost guaranteed to end in an all-out nuclear exchange.

(I’m guessing that the climate change resulting from a “nuclear winter” would expunge the earth of way more lifeforms than that of the climate change brought-on by our carbon emissions.)

Don’t you think a more “logikal” gamble would be one where the entire world enters into a new “Manhattan Project” in an all-out effort to solve the energy crisis? - Maybe via cold fusion or something similar?

Perhaps when artificial intelligence soon reaches the so-called “technological singularity” it will help us to achieve that goal.

In the meantime, we need to realize that the Chinese people are not our enemies, for they have been helping to facilitate our lifestyle (clothing us/feeding us) for a long time now.

They are simply a vast enclave of our fellow humans (more than 4 times the population of the U.S.) who are doing the best they can to survive.

And lastly, any western society with a modicum of self-reflection would realize that we (especially America) are a greater threat to them than they are to us (of which your astonishingly cavalier attitude toward war so strongly suggests).
_______

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:51 pm

seeds wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 pm
What an incredibly myopic view.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You know "myopic" means short-sighted, right? How "far-sighted could you possibly be if you are trying to do a cost-benefit analysis given an extinction event.

seeds wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 pm
How about we approach the solution without using rhetoric that has the word “war” in it?...

...especially a war that is almost guaranteed to end in an all-out nuclear exchange.
Well, THAT is myopic.

Do you think a nuclear war is worse than a climate event in which the Earth's biosphere no longer supports life?
seeds wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 pm
Don’t you think a more “logikal” gamble would be one where the entire world enters into a new “Manhattan Project” in an all-out effort to solve the energy crisis? - Maybe via cold fusion or something similar?
Reading is not your strong suit. IF China is not on-board with that.

IF.
IF.
IF
IF

They maintain current course of action (70-80% of global emissions) and fail to acknowledge the existential risk to all humans a war against them is perfectly justifiable.

It's not like we haven't tried cold fusion. It's not like the incentives to build it right now aren't in place. Where is it?

There are technical and consequential holes no amount of solidarity, empathy and warm/fuzzy feelings can dig us out of...

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 pm

Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:51 pm
Do you think a nuclear war is worse than a climate event in which the Earth's biosphere no longer supports life?
Hmmm, let’s see now,...

...an extinction event caused by the unfortunate foibles and missteps by humans attempting to keep warm and power their societies in order to survive and procreate...

...or...

...an extinction event that is caused by neanderthalic idiots and fools purposely murdering billions of their fellow humans (including themselves and their own children) in an act that is so utterly insane that it defies comprehension.

It’s a tough call, Logik, but I’m thinking that (at least from a moral standpoint) the second option is infinitely worse than the first.
_______

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:52 am

seeds wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:51 pm
Do you think a nuclear war is worse than a climate event in which the Earth's biosphere no longer supports life?
Hmmm, let’s see now,...

...an extinction event caused by the unfortunate foibles and missteps by humans attempting to keep warm and power their societies in order to survive and procreate...

...or...

...an extinction event that is caused by neanderthalic idiots and fools purposely murdering billions of their fellow humans (including themselves and their own children) in an act that is so utterly insane that it defies comprehension.

It’s a tough call, Logik, but I’m thinking that (at least from a moral standpoint) the second option is infinitely worse than the first.
_______
The error you are committing is you are trying to do cost-benefit analysis under ruin.

To speak of a "morally better" way to become extinct is an oxymoron.

Extinction is the most immoral outcome possible!

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:36 pm

humans will go extinct, at some point. most of you read this and just see pessimism, but think hard how unrealistic it is to think we will live forever in the universe, and as if it's really desirable

is it? do you really think it's worth it to sacrifice everything now for the greatest chance at living forever in the universe, or of not going extinct later rather than sooner?

the only thing this fantasy appeals to is humans fear of death. it itself is fundamentally negative, constantly reacting to fear rather than desire for positive experience, or the most positive living we can muster before our inevitable extinction anyway.

and why is this fear encouraged? why are people who put 'survival first' hired while 'carefree types' aren't? because people are more controllable when they are fearful and bent on survival, even if they are filthy rich.

so yes, you need to be alive to be satisfied or not satisfied, but we ARE alive now, and giving up the fear of death will not result in global chaos or a breakdown of the basic motivation holding our social systems - the world - together. people aren't just going to go crazy in the streets burning everything because there has been a fundamental shift in motivation. there are other strong motivations to sew people together, positive motivations. we just need to go about it the right way, be thoughtful, get on the same page, hear people, know what they are thinking and feeling. that is currently not possible when people are as censored as they are in public.

deep down people want and know this, they just need encouragement. it is not against the grain of human nature - quite the opposite, i believe people are starving for it.

and yet still if you are afraid of the an undesirable outcome from a fundamental shift in human priority, i have the solution. set up suicide clinics in a wing of every hospital, granting convenient and comfortable passage from the world of the living to anyone via lethal injection while they are sleeping (after watching a movie and eating a meal of their choice the night before) upon request and reasonable screening for 'insanity'. that way, no one will feel trapped or like they are forced to go along with it. they will have true security in death, if it not to their liking.

again, don't just react to this, think about the appeal. how does this really strike you? it should feel good, like a huge weight off, that means it is good.

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm

seeds wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:57 pm
Logik wrote:
Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:51 pm
Do you think a nuclear war is worse than a climate event in which the Earth's biosphere no longer supports life?
Hmmm, let’s see now,...

...an extinction event caused by the unfortunate foibles and missteps by humans attempting to keep warm and power their societies in order to survive and procreate...

...or...

...an extinction event that is caused by neanderthalic idiots and fools purposely murdering billions of their fellow humans (including themselves and their own children) in an act that is so utterly insane that it defies comprehension.

It’s a tough call, Logik, but I’m thinking that (at least from a moral standpoint) the second option is infinitely worse than the first.
_______
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:52 am
The error you are committing is you are trying to do cost-benefit analysis under ruin.
And the error that you are committing is in trying to defend the merits of the most ridiculous and horrific decision humans could ever make in the history of life on earth.
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:52 am
To speak of a "morally better" way to become extinct is an oxymoron.

Extinction is the most immoral outcome possible!
You just don’t get it.

Whatever it is that crawls out of a bunker after purposely choosing to murder billions of men, women, and children, is unworthy of life and should go extinct.

Furthermore, if you type into Google: “What country produces the highest percentage of co2 emissions?” a chart will appear that shows that in 2015, Americans were responsible for almost two and a half times more emissions per capita than China’s per capita.

In which case, the sheer hypocrisy of your argument is stunning.
_______

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:22 pm

seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
And the error that you are committing is in trying to defend the merits of the most ridiculous and horrific decision humans could ever make in the history of life on earth.
And you don't think sitting and doing nothing is equally horrific a decision?
seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
Whatever it is that crawls out of a bunker after purposely choosing to murder billions of men, women, and children, is unworthy of life and should go extinct.
Natural selection doesn't care about warm fuzzy feelings. Something either will crawl our - or it won't.

If I had any say in it - it's going to be me.

seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
Furthermore, if you type into Google: “What country produces the highest percentage of co2 emissions?” a chart will appear that shows that in 2015, Americans were responsible for almost two and a half times more emissions per capita than China’s per capita.

In which case, the sheer hypocrisy of your argument is stunning.
Nature doesn't give a fuck about statistical ratios.

On average all species go extinct only once.

11011
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:42 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by 11011 » Thu Mar 28, 2019 7:27 pm

the story of the human race can be summed up as follows:

do nothing, die now

do something, postpone death

- if living a little longer is all you care about, then what to do should be obvious; most people appear to be content with just living a little bit longer, i personally cannot relate to this, not because i can take life for granted, but because i don't care about living for living's sake

- i suspect deep down all humans are actually more like i am, that it is fear that makes them weak in the face of death, i wonder the source of this fear, as i feel fear too, for other things - but not death

- if humans could master this fear, this weakness - and it is an irrational weakness, when you consider you're going to die anyway - then i think true progress can be made, and if extinction of the human race at some point is inevitable, then what progress must mean must be related to how they live their lives, not how long

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:29 am

seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
And the error that you are committing is in trying to defend the merits of the most ridiculous and horrific decision humans could ever make in the history of life on earth.
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:22 pm
And you don't think sitting and doing nothing is equally horrific a decision?
And you have the gall to accuse me of having poor reading skills?

I clearly stated earlier that we should embark on a worldwide “new Manhattan Project” in which the greatest minds on earth could work together (nonstop) until the energy crisis is resolved – once and for all.

Now of course that may indeed be wishful thinking, but it’s hardly a call for sitting and doing nothing.

On the other hand, instead of choosing a path that (God forbid) employs the “warm and fuzzy” attributes of wisdom and cooperation, you personally think that an all-out nuclear war would be a better solution to climate change.

Perhaps it would be a good idea that you put down your shovel and stop digging yourself deeper into a hole of indefensible nonsense.
_______

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:30 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:29 am
seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
And the error that you are committing is in trying to defend the merits of the most ridiculous and horrific decision humans could ever make in the history of life on earth.
Logik wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 5:22 pm
And you don't think sitting and doing nothing is equally horrific a decision?
And you have the gall to accuse me of having poor reading skills?

I clearly stated earlier that we should embark on a worldwide “new Manhattan Project” in which the greatest minds on earth could work together (nonstop) until the energy crisis is resolved – once and for all.

Now of course that may indeed be wishful thinking, but it’s hardly a call for sitting and doing nothing.

On the other hand, instead of choosing a path that (God forbid) employs the “warm and fuzzy” attributes of wisdom and cooperation, you personally think that an all-out nuclear war would be a better solution to climate change.

Perhaps it would be a good idea that you put down your shovel and stop digging yourself deeper into a hole of indefensible nonsense.
_______
You do understand that war is a break-glass (last resort) option, right?

It is AFTER your attempts to "cooperate and educate" have failed.
It is AFTER your "new Manhattan Project" has yielded no results whatsoever.
It is AFTER the 20% who contribute 80% towards the problem have achieved nothing towards adjusting their own behavior.
It is AFTER you have tried everything, nothing has worked and the train is still accelerating towards the mountain.

War is perfectly defensible, justifiable, last-resort option. It works.

I don't have to defend my position in such a circumstance. I just have to cut my losses and eradicate you from the face of the Earth.

Your "warm&fuzzys" are broken. You somehow think NOT making such a decision is morally superior. There is no moral superiority in extinction.

There is nothing after extinction. Just archaeological evidence.

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am

seeds wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 2:29 am
...Perhaps it would be a good idea that you put down your shovel and stop digging yourself deeper into a hole of indefensible nonsense.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:30 am
You do understand that war is a break-glass (last resort) option, right?
Yes, I do understand that.

But apparently it is you who does not understand that the “break-glass (last resort)” war of which you speak (as in all-out nuclear) would probably be infinitely worse for humanity than anything caused by co2 emissions.

Nevertheless, your backpedaling is noted.

However, don’t you dare try to feign an air of rationality at this point of the argument.

Because in light of what I stated earlier...
seeds wrote:
Thu Mar 28, 2019 1:59 pm
...if you type into Google: “What country produces the highest percentage of co2 emissions?” a chart will appear that shows that in 2015, Americans were responsible for almost two and a half times more emissions per capita than China’s per capita.
...and in light of the following headline from a 2017 article in the online New York Times...
The New York Times wrote: The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History. It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal.
The United States, with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet.
...it is therefore obvious that the irrationality of your hypocritical reasoning for wanting to go to war with China is on full display.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:30 am
War is perfectly defensible, justifiable, last-resort option. It works.
Again with the feigning of an air of rationality.

The problem is that your statement implies a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a war using conventional weapons and a war using nuclear weapons.

Yours is precisely the mentality that Einstein feared when he allegedly made the following statement:
Albert Einstein wrote: I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.
Yeah, yeah, I know what you’re thinking:

“but at least according to that Einstein quote humanity will still be around to fight a world war IV.”

But as I implied earlier, whatever it is that survives and slithers from the bunkers after premeditatively deciding to murder (pulverize, incinerate, radioactively poison) billions of innocent men, women, and children is (IMO) no longer worthy of the survival it seeks.
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:30 am
I don't have to defend my position in such a circumstance. I just have to cut my losses and eradicate you from the face of the Earth.
Like I said...

...whatever “it” is that slithers from the bunkers.....^^^
Logik wrote:
Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:30 am
Your "warm&fuzzys" are broken. You somehow think NOT making such a decision is morally superior. There is no moral superiority in extinction.

There is nothing after extinction. Just archaeological evidence.
Setting aside the main problem of your extremely limited ability to imagine the hellish aftermath of an all-out nuclear war, try to understand that it is not your justifiable concern about our extinction that I am taking issue with.

No, what bothers me is, again, the brazen hypocrisy of your argument that begrudges and condemns the Chinese people for using the same methods of industrialization that we in the west have been using for decades prior to their efforts.

That, and your complete and utter lack of empathy for the plight of a society that has more mouths to feed than the U.S., the UK, Germany, France, and Australia combined.
_______

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
But apparently it is you who does not understand that the “break-glass (last resort)” war of which you speak (as in all-out nuclear) would probably be infinitely worse for humanity than anything caused by co2 emissions.
One kind of extinction is infinitely worse than another kind of extinction ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How did you figure that out?

Would you say that death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria?
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
Nevertheless, your backpedaling is noted.
False accusation.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
However, don’t you dare try to feign an air of rationality at this point of the argument.

Because in light of what I stated earlier...
You don't even know what rationality means. It has nothing to do with logic/reason. It has everything to do with achieving one's goals.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
...if you type into Google: “What country produces the highest percentage of co2 emissions?” a chart will appear that shows that in 2015, Americans were responsible for almost two and a half times more emissions per capita than China’s per capita.
...and in light of the following headline from a 2017 article in the online New York Times...
You don't understand statistics. You are using a relativistic tool (per-capita numbers) and forgetting about the absolutist aspect (total quantities)
When talking about absolute quantities China is the biggest culprit: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 2c2ea2628c

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

This is where you need to try another one of those "don't feign rationality" backpedaling attempts to divert from the fact that you don't have a clue how to use statistics and you display faux-condescension to make up for your own inadequacies by referring me to Google again.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
The problem is that your statement implies a complete lack of understanding of the difference between a war using conventional weapons and a war using nuclear weapons.

Non-sequitur. You are still reasoning like a Kantian. Deontological ethics are equivalent to wishful thinking.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
...whatever “it” is that slithers from the bunkers.....^^^
For somebody who claims to be "rational" you sure think you know best what ought to survive natural selection and what ought not to survive it.

YOU don't get to decide that - the universe gets to decide that ;)

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
Setting aside the main problem of your extremely limited ability to imagine the hellish aftermath of an all-out nuclear war, try to understand that it is not your justifiable concern about our extinction that I am taking issue with.
You have still failed to demonstrate or explain WHY the aftermath of a nuclear war is worse than the aftermath of an extinction.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
No, what bothers me is, again, the brazen hypocrisy of your argument that begrudges and condemns the Chinese people for using the same methods of industrialization that we in the west have been using for decades prior to their efforts.
Stupid Kantian. There's no room for categorical imperatives in consequential ethics.
Last edited by Logik on Sat Mar 30, 2019 10:34 am, edited 6 times in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3303
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by surreptitious57 » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:38 am

Logic wrote:
Would you say that death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria
Category error : murder is a general term where as malaria is a particular disease and so they cannot be compared
Some murders would be worse than death by malaria while others would be better so you need to be more specific

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sat Mar 30, 2019 8:42 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:38 am
Logic wrote:
Would you say that death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria
Category error : murder is a general term where as malaria is a particular disease and so they cannot be compared
Some murders would be worse than death by malaria while others would be better so you need to be more specific
False positive on "category error" (which is itself a category error).

Death is an effect. An outcome. An event.
Murder and malaria are causes.

I am comparing DEATH (by murder) to DEATH (by malaria).

In that framework - do you prefer DEATH-by-murder or DEATH-by-malaria.

Me - I don't care. Death is death.

seeds
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
But apparently it is you who does not understand that the “break-glass (last resort)” war of which you speak (as in all-out nuclear) would probably be infinitely worse for humanity than anything caused by co2 emissions.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
One kind of extinction is infinitely worse than another kind of extinction ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How did you figure that out?
As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.

That being said, it is obvious that your left-brained filter that only sees in black and white statistics...

(as in “an extinction is an extinction” no matter what the reason)

...does not permit you to discern any difference between humans making honest (albeit foolish) mistakes as they attempt to thrive and procreate, and that of a deliberate decision to destroy the world.

And btw, in case you hadn’t noticed, this is a “philosophy” forum where we attempt to analyze the world from a philosophical perspective.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
Would you say that death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria?
From a moral standpoint, yes, death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria.

However, it is quite clear that morality does not factor-in to your “survival-of-the-fittest” mentality.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
...if you type into Google: “What country produces the highest percentage of co2 emissions?” a chart will appear that shows that in 2015, Americans were responsible for almost two and a half times more emissions per capita than China’s per capita.
...and in light of the following headline from a 2017 article in the online New York Times...
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
You don't understand statistics. You are using a relativistic tool (per-capita numbers) and forgetting about the absolutist aspect (total quantities)
When talking about absolute quantities China is the biggest culprit: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 2c2ea2628c

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined
I think that the “absolutist aspect (total quantities)” declared in the New York Times article headline...
the New York Times wrote: The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History.
...adequately counters your claim.
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
You don't even know what rationality means. It has nothing to do with logic/reason. It has everything to do with achieving one's goals.
The Dictionary wrote: ra•tion•al•i•ty
noun
1. the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
It’s okay, Logik, we all make mistakes. Owning up to them is another story. :wink:
Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
Stupid Kantian.
In the past I have been accused of a passive aggressiveness in my insults of others.

Apparently you prefer the direct approach. :D
_______

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Veritas Aequitas and 7 guests