Taking sides.

Post Reply New Topic

Suppose that a team of scientists and biologists came to a pessimistic conclusion as to the future of the planet as an ecosystem. Humans might have become addicted, dependant on technique: they believe they are the masters but they are slaves (Lang’s Metropolis, Capek’s RUR, Gunter Anders’s Man’s Obsolescence, Zygmunt Bauman, Lovelock’s Gaia, Emile Cioran). If catastrophe mongers were right and the choice were only to side with life as it has grown on the planet according to laws elaborated in millions of years or with humans +technique, given that these two things are now inseparable, which side would you take if they were at mortal war? Not that to side with “life” has nothing to do with naturism, conservationism, animalism, tree hugging, luddism. If anything some “life friendly” philosophies have already been proposed: Tao, Buddhism, the Cynics, and they do require no action. There is a legend that Alexander the Great went to pay homage to Diogenes the Cynic in his barrel the and asked him if he had some wish that he could satisfy. And Diogenes the Cynic would have answered “Yes that you move away and stop covering me from the sun”. So would you choose Diogenes or the missile shield?

What good would technology do us if we didn't have a planet to live on?

Side orders topic

Fries with that? No. I would rather take a problem solving approach. We need to discuss ideas for making our world a better place, and then take action based on the most productive ones. I like think tanks, as long as you put ypur money where your mouth is. We need to do things, not jsut debate and rage over the negative stuff. We have been there and done that. It is time to decide, based on the best approaches.

How? By dialogue from all sides. Yes, even your enemies. Keep them close, better the devils you know. I have checked into advice from adversaries. Ideas are ideas. But we need to hear from all sides, and not just take one. This does not work anymore. Then we compromise. It is called synthesis. I am not crazy about Hegel. but he as on the right track. Kant, too.

Diogenes or the missile shield? Diogenes every time! But are there any trees left to get the wood to make the barrel? They probably make them out of plastic these days.

If people actually planned the way they wanted the world to be, it wouldn't be the way it is now, at least for the vast majority of its inhabitants. The scientists haven't done a fantastic job so far (yes OK, medicines, but I wouldn't trust them with the whole planet and the future of mankind and every other species)

Let's start all over again and let the philosophers have a go.

Too much will to organize, without knowing the consequences of your organizing action, other people's life. Who was right: Lao Tse or Lenin?

If we are starting again, should we choose a secular society, or one with god/godess (es)?

Historically, religion seems to be a very good way to start trouble between cultures, but without them we are left only with the scientific/rational, and where are we then to place our spirituality?

If I have to choose sides: Diogenes for sure. But will there ever come such a time when people will have to choose sides?

The main problem is the nature of the human being. All a human wants is to increase its pleasure, and it uses everything in its power to optimise this. At a certain point our behaviour will turn against ourselves, I think. The main problem is there are too many of us at the moment. Problems with energy and food shortage will arise in the next 50 years. New techs like biotechnology will enable more efficient use of land for agriculture, but this will only alieviate the situation for a moment. Humans will just continue to multiply as we do now to a new census record.

Technology is evidence of man's insecurity. Humans need to feel like they are in control. Technology allows man to "master" his environment.

But technology cannot prevent floods, hurricanes, lightning strikes, forest fires, blizzards, earthquakes.

And it can create global warming and it already has.

And it can create drought and it already has.

So I think technology is a curse and until the more populous and "wealthy" countries on the planet realize that they will not techno-fix their way out of global warming or peak oil or drought, we are going to suffer from a lot of negative ecological developments before things get better.

It's sad the way that people fantasize about technology and then try to live out their fantasies. We don't need to go explore space and we don't need to send men to the Moon or put space stations up. We have way too many things to fix down here on our home.

I agree totally with micah_pyre. It'amusing, so to speak, to see how people think that they can get away from the damages of the technological recipe adding more technology to the recipe.

Here is a quotation of a poet:

I do not know much about gods; but I think that the river
Is a strong brown god - sullen, untamed and intractable,
Patient to some degree, at first recognised as a frontier;
Useful, untrustworthy, as a conveyor of commerce;
Then only a problem confronting the builder of bridges.
The problem once solved, the brown god is almost forgotten
By the dwellers in cities - ever, however, implacable.
Keeping his seasons and rages, destroyer, reminder
Of what men choose to forget. Unhonoured, unpropitiated
By worshippers of the machine, but waiting, watching and waiting.
His rhythm was present in the nursery bedroom,
In the rank ailanthus of the April dooryard,
In the smell of grapes on the autumn table,
And the evening circle in the winter gaslight.
The river is within us...
T.S.Eliot, The dry salvages

^I second that. It's interesting how arrogant we become when we are smart in some ways but lack common sense in others.

The world isn't a lost cause just yet. Are you all ready to throw up your hands and give up? Pessism sees the bad in everything while denying the good in anything. Pessism says any problem or hardship is just too much to bear, and then proceeds to shoot itself in the head. With a suicide-note 50 pages long ...

Everything that humanity does is an act of nature, as we are a part of nature. Life is a very adaptive thing and is very difficult to destroy, if not impossible. I don't think humans are capable of ending life on this planet, and we certainly aren't going to do it by accident. We're just not that powerful. If we abandon all technology, or are abandoned by all technology, then those that cannot adapt will die, while those that can will thrive.

We are natural creatures, and the ecosystem will evolve to account for us or force us to evolve to account for it. A balance will always be reached, the only question is whether humanity will be part of that balance.