I would have to agree with Ruth. Some of the public doesn't even see Climate Change as a real problem. There are just some people now addressing the issue.
Yes as long as business have no stake in the climate or incentives to change their ways nothing will happen.
I don't know. I have a lot of "I don't knows" in my thoughts and most of them don't bother me. In fact, I look at almost all of my "I don't knows" with a kind of youthful enthusiasm about maybe one day figuring them out (full disclosure, I haven't been chronologically youthful for at least a "couple" of years). But, when it comes to climate change, I don't know and it bothers me not to know. I've read the reports, I understand the implications, but I feel totally helpless in being able figure out how to stop the the inertia of a couple of decades of inaction. I eventually did the only things I could think of; I donated to organizations that promote a reduction in carbon burning, I've reduced my own footprint, and I apologized to my children for my own generation's lack of commitment to theirs. Pretty feeble, I realize but, on the bright side, my children's generation appears to be a lot smarter than mine was (hope springs eternal).
JJ, I think what you do is about right, given so little public acknowledgement that humans might possibly have contributed and may be able to reduce consequences. In the meantime, I figure I just need to scale back and act as if seas will rise and temperatures will soar. We just had two record heats days and I sat in my garden panting, unable to pick up a trowel. We are not the first to have to make lifestyle changes because of weather. Hopefully, our children and their families use their creativity and imagination to make any needed changes.
Thanks Joan. Four hundred years after Bacon put pen to paper, I usually find defending the empirically established to be amusing. But on this issue, the only detracted position I can take and feel any comfort in is that maybe one day historians will understand and be able to explain how it seemed plausible to ignore it at the time.
This is going to take some time to digest. A first glance looks as though there are principles to be recognized, and patterns to be deciphered.
We need governments to stop subsidising babies and polluting industries, and we need to put all our efforts in creating a zero growth society, both economically and population wise. When sulfur was removed from gasoline a long time ago, it wasn't little personal actions, it was a change in government policies. We need to strengthen our environmental departments and gut our military and big business aid. But as long as the Homo sapiens population continues to grow, no other action will have any significant effect. As long as the Homo sapiens population is growing, other large life forms will disappear.
Your right. If the population problem is not resolved anything else we do will be farting in the wind. I seriously doubt any effective measures will be instituted before the shit hits the fan and the human die off reaches epic proportions. Global climate instability will hasten the day.
The only things that have reduced the human population are war, famine and epidemic disease. Logical workable methods to reduce population growth present great philosophical discussions but little concrete action. There is a number of localized incidents of a population over growing the carrying capacity of their environment and suffering the consequences – the Easter Island people and the Mayans are 2 examples.
However, the issue is no longer a local problem – it's world wide. In my lifetime the world's population has grown from a shade over 2 billion to 7 billion and at a current growth rate of 1.4 %/year it will be 14 billion in 2062 – short of some truly remarkable achievements in science and technology, the ecological imperatives will impose mama nature's cures, swift and brutal population reduction .
I think when people finally come around to the realisation that there are too many humans, compared to other large animal species, this must lead to a renewed questioning of our value system.
There are plenty of atheists right here on this site which believe in this new fashion called absolute morals, pushed by the Humanist dogma and the four atheist horsement of the ... All of the values those people consider to be "absolute morals", when you step back a little, are in fact behaviours that favour growth of the human population, increasing our competitive fitness compared to other large species. It is easy to understand... in most of Homo sapiens history, we were in lesser numbers than other large animals, so it made some sense to glorify values that increased human numbers, goodness, pacifism, Hypocrates' oath, cooperation, golden rule, etc.
But to understand that these values have the specific effect of increasing the Homo sapiens population, is it not time that we stopped glorifying those values, and considered most things that increase Homo sapiens population to be immoral, or at least NON priorities???
Medically, this would mean to completely DE-fund all research and effort in increasing birthing success, DE-funding all research and effort in life extension after serious accidents and old age, and placing all our efforts into research areas benefitting quality of life of youth and adults.
Socially this would mind letting people commit suicide, no matter if it's in a normal time of life or to escape disease, including assisted suicide being legalised everywhere and encouraging people to use living wills to diminish death prolonging procedures.
Family wise this would mean removing ALL financial incentives to marriage, or deleting it altogether from our legal system, and DE-funding all breeding policies.
Economically this would mean that governments and corporations be held to balance instead of growth. Fiscally this would mean a complete revamping of our interest and monetary valuing methods.
Manufacturing-wise this would mean a mandatory return to durable goods instead of a throw-away society.
Legally, this would involve de-emphasizing crimes life drugs, theft, and placing more effort in dishonesty crimes such as corporate crime, white-collar crime, who's victims are not individuals, but the happiness of entire communities.
Moral absolutism is an ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other circumstances such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Thus stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good.
I do not believe in Moral Absolutism.
I would steal to feed a starving family.
Or go against a corrupt government.
Humanism: A Belief with no Purpose or Objective Values
Humanism holds that the universe exists for no purpose. We are the result of a blind and random process that does not necessitate any kind of meaning. Humanism differs from the more extreme philosophy of nihilism, in that life can have a meaning if we assign a meaning to it. Life is only worth living if we ourselves make it worthwhile and enjoyable. Humanism maintains that no objective or universal values exist. A person may be moral if he or she creates a system of values and lives according them. A humanist would maintain that no one is obligated to be moral. Therefore, humanism fails to provide moral objections to immoral behavior. Obviously, if no moral absolutes exist, you can't demonstrate that anything is wrong or evil. Thus, in a humanist society, no one can really judge or condemn the choices or actions of others.