Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 am
Fundamentally however, we remain subject to the overall principle, that we must be right to reality to survive.
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 2:31 pmIf that means what we understand about reality must be right and we have to live in conformance to that understanding, that is absolutely correct. Almost every human problem can be put down to failing or refusing to discover the nature of reality or living in defiance of that nature.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Fri Sep 10, 2021 5:20 amI can confirm the existence of a mechanism in the relation between the organism and reality, but what it means should have been the work of civilisations and centuries to discover and define. Instead, the Church established an antithetical relation to science, and philosophy has papered over the cracks, such that now - what should rationally be only right and natural is potentially quite dangerous. In Enemies of an Open Society, Karl Popper warns recognising science as truth would require 'making all our representations conform' to science as truth; science would be dictatorial, and that's something I specifically defend against ...
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmI totally agree up to here. After this you've mixed the necessity of individual autonomy with some collective goals, which are contradictory:
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pmNo. I've described the concept of 'right' I've employed to justify developing magma energy to combat climate change. Climate change is a global threat, and requires collective action to address it. In this context, I believe 'it's right because it's true' is justified. I do not think it justified as a basis to address "every human problem" - and I'm trying to explain why.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 1:37 pm
... by suggesting science as the authoritative basis for cooperation in a global good; developing magma energy to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling etc. In this way we can harness the functional truth value of science insofar as is necessary to survival, without seeking to re-organise society with reference to scientific principles. Approached globally, from the supply side, based on limitless clean energy, doing what's necessary to sustainability, we can harness the functional truth value of science and retain our irrational ideological identities and positions, and so 'get there from here.'
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 6:42 pmYou've simply replaced, "science," as the basis for authority with some notion of, "global good," as the basis for authority. Who defines what is the, "global good?" Who is, "we," and what do you intend to do with those who do not agree and choose not to cooperate to fulfill your personal vision of what is right for the world? I totally disagree with what you think is the correct way to run the world. For example: carbon sequestration, recycling, limitless clean energy, and sustainability are all crackpot ideas hatched by environmental totalitarians which if implemented would produce massive worldwide starvation, poverty, and social upheaval. Why would you want that?
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 10:42 pmIn Oct/Nov the UK is hosting COP 26, and it's bodies like that make decisions. It's my fondest hope that before then, I can raise the question of transcending limits to resources - by harnessing limitless clean energy from magma, because I believe it's scientifically and technologically possible, and that more energy - not less, is necessary to a sustainable future. Wind and solar cannot provide more energy. But magma energy can meet and exceed global energy demand; and massively more energy is the way to go. Backing down in face of the climate challenge - a policy strategy of
have less and pay more, tax this and stop that will send us into a spiral of entropic decline, and we will surely fail to secure the future. Only if we have limitless amounts of clean energy to spend, can we balance prosperity and sustainability. If I can raise that idea, I'll have done my duty - and they are the legitimate authorities, the powers that be, does it matter who "they" are? Or does it matter what's true?
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 1:39 am
The only thing you have described is some environmentalist ideological view of how things are supposed to be and have called that right. No one is born into this world to save humanity or world society. Nonsense like, "climate change is a global threat," is an attempt to scare the gullible into supporting some social/political agenda. Climate always changes, and human beings adapt. I'm sorry if you would rather stamp your foot and complain that you don't like climate to change. It's going to change, no matter what anyone does. Personally I'm very disappointed that all promised, "global warming," has not happened and it's been promised now for over 30 years.
There are no, "legitimate," authorities and all those who claim to be are mostly petty tyrants who just want to control others. Now if you believe that's right, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Mine is that no human being is born with an unearned obligation to anyone else and no one has, "duty," to do anything they didn't willingly sign-up for. One's only responsibility in life is to use their own mind to learn all the can, to think as well as the can, to work and produce as much of value as they can and to be the best human being they can possibly be, and to live a fully rewarding and enjoyable life. Such individuals are the only one's in this world who are of any value to themselves, or anyone else, because they are the only one's living in conformance with the requirements of the nature of reality.
Well, I guess this is your thread, so I don't get to force you to assume climate change is real here. So, tell me - are the vast majority of world scientists wrong, or crooked? You do seem to be suggesting a crooked conspiracy - to "scare gullible people" and I'm just wondering how that works. How do they coordinate the lies they are going to tell the world? Is it not more likely that you are failing to make the requisite distinction between the science and the politics?
Because I agree, the environmentalist narrative is highly politicised. In my view, the left have dominated environmental thinking, and focused the science through the lens of anti-capitalist politics, and if it were that you were objecting to - I agree, because a far better approach to sustainability is to sustain capitalism with limitless clean energy, however, I think you are flushing the science baby with the political bathwater.
I think we've had this discussion before, and it was at this point you referred me to your long list of things you don't believe - because I accused you of being politically motivated. Please don't do that again. If you make right wing climate change denier talking points, then you represent that view, and that's a view I can speak to. You say: "Climate always changes, and human beings adapt" - which is nominally, not untrue, but 99% of all species that have ever existed adapted to climate change by becoming extinct; then literal ages passed while new organisms evolved. That's not a useful perspective.
You ignore the cause, pace and scale of the current changes we are seeing, to say nothing of the unique vulnerability of civilisation - to the massive, and ongoing economic implications of climate change. Our situation is unique; no historical precedent serves because of the civilisations we have built. We are not in a state of nature anymore, and we are not dumb animals who must walk blindly into our evolutionary fate. We must be right to the reality of the environment to survive. You said it yourself:
"If that means what we understand about reality must be right and we have to live in conformance to that understanding, that is absolutely correct. Almost every human problem can be put down to failing or refusing to discover the nature of reality or living in defiance of that nature."
(
But not climate change!?!)
So, I guess my question is, if not by the overwhelming consensus of world scientists, how are we to discover and live in accord with the true nature of reality? How are we to adapt, if not in relation to our best understanding of reality? Insofar as you adhere to right wing climate change denial, are you not just an epistemic free rider - enjoying the benefits of science that suits, while refusing to be responsible to science that doesn't? Because my argument is that accepting science as a rationale for action to combat climate change; and developing magma energy, can sustain freedom and prosperity!