Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on November 2, 2012 at 11:14pm

I'm not any good at philosophy. When I try to read something in the philosophical vein, I wonder why the writer doesn't just say she likes or does not like, wants or does not want, needs or does not need something. I am not bragging, I seriously would like to be able to understand what philosophers mean. 

In regard to climate change, I think we need to have discussions including political, economic and scientific input. What is happening? Why? Are we contributing to its cause? What can we do to stop it or slow it down? What changes can we expect in our food production? How many people can our soils, water and air support? How can we bring population into a sustainable level? Why are we still using fossil fuels? When are we going to dedicate our efforts toward renewable, sustainable fuel sources? 

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on November 2, 2012 at 11:32pm

Hi Joan I agree with you. And like you I don't have a philosophy background.
You ask very good questions. Now we need to figure out the answers.

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on November 3, 2012 at 12:27pm

Steph, that is what the "red ball" says about Humanists, (one of my least favourite internet sources) but it's not what Humanists say about Humanism. Humanists claim that the the majority of morals in today's society (most notably minus being pro-LGBT) are actually "absolute morals" which exist for all human societies, now, and then. This is a conversation which happens frequently on this forum and at Think Atheist. Mostly Humanists declare that instead of ALL value being determined by gods, that ALL value is determined by humans. I think that is ironic, since it's saying the exact same thing... since gods were made in the image of humans...

The solution... we need to recognise that we should be only a little cog in an entire ecosystem, and we should refrain from trying to dominate every single aspect of it. It's humans' obsession with dominating (come biblically) EVERYTHING that has brought us to this point. Reducing emissions by a couple of points will accomplish nothing. We need massive societal change. So let's not deal with the symptoms... but with the cause.

Even at that, the majority scientific opinion is that even by stopping all anthropogenic CO2 and methane, that WE have so overloaded the system (acidification of oceans), that it would take a few hundred years for those  rates to start dropping again. For me, the assassination of ALL other large animals on earth through human expansionism is just as much of a crime as what we're doing to our atmosphere. It's why I'm not interested in a solution to a single environmental problem, to me we have to address.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page