Reasoning a solution to global warming.
0 views
Skip to first unread message
lj
Feb 14, 2009, 6:47:54 PM2/14/09
to AskPhilosophers
I have recently posted a quiz that failed to reached its intended
objective "Science what a mess!!"
The real intention here was not to blame science, but rather to find a
ground to reason a solution for global warming.
I am quite aware of the good experimental results that science has
done in an attempt to materialize reasons. Good stuff right.
Humans, however are becoming quite obsessed with the material that
scientist are becoming overwhelmed with human demand to fulfill their
obsession and desire for materialism. Hence more action is put into
fulfilling these desires than the impact of these experiments on
humanity and its natural environment.
Take an example of what is now called developed nations and a city
like New York, there is virtually nothing left as part of preserving
nature. The entire city is just but only buildings and all shorts of
material that humans can afford to fulfill their material desires.
These very materials are of themselves useless without any natural
sources of power like petrol, coal and other forms of energy
generating resources. These have recently made the former US president
Bush to accuse the late Iraqi president Sadam of “weapon of mass
destruction”. I guess even the most common general reason can see that
it’s the petrol in Iraq that has been labeled "weapon of mass
destruction" by the BUSH admin. Of cause it’s obvious that without
such power, the material world that the US has put herself into is
just a coffin of a fallen dark age. Where all those tall buildings are
grave yards for their tenants.
If destruction is indeed part of the equation as one thinker puts it,
does it not really sound as if arrogance and aggressiveness has taken
over human logic or reason for responsibly finding solution to their
man made problems?
Could it not be better to say woo woo woo people, these experiments
are taking us too far (to destroy our very existence). Let’s first sit
down and find responsible ways by reason, to reverse this cause. Like
say, surrender to Mother Nature and fully take charge of the available
remaining resources in peace. Not for selfish ambitions but rather in
a way that shall restore peace and justice for all human race and
nature?
I think we still have enough virgin land in Africa, Asia, and South
America that holds enough natural resources to reverse this
destructive venture that we have put ourselves into.
Can’t the human species find the reason of peace more appealing than
that of war and destruction?
Is not arrogance a sign of defeat that manifests its self on humans or
any living creature that has failed to find a way out of their death
trap?
Can anyone find sense in my reason or am I in may own little world?
objective "Science what a mess!!"
The real intention here was not to blame science, but rather to find a
ground to reason a solution for global warming.
I am quite aware of the good experimental results that science has
done in an attempt to materialize reasons. Good stuff right.
Humans, however are becoming quite obsessed with the material that
scientist are becoming overwhelmed with human demand to fulfill their
obsession and desire for materialism. Hence more action is put into
fulfilling these desires than the impact of these experiments on
humanity and its natural environment.
Take an example of what is now called developed nations and a city
like New York, there is virtually nothing left as part of preserving
nature. The entire city is just but only buildings and all shorts of
material that humans can afford to fulfill their material desires.
These very materials are of themselves useless without any natural
sources of power like petrol, coal and other forms of energy
generating resources. These have recently made the former US president
Bush to accuse the late Iraqi president Sadam of “weapon of mass
destruction”. I guess even the most common general reason can see that
it’s the petrol in Iraq that has been labeled "weapon of mass
destruction" by the BUSH admin. Of cause it’s obvious that without
such power, the material world that the US has put herself into is
just a coffin of a fallen dark age. Where all those tall buildings are
grave yards for their tenants.
If destruction is indeed part of the equation as one thinker puts it,
does it not really sound as if arrogance and aggressiveness has taken
over human logic or reason for responsibly finding solution to their
man made problems?
Could it not be better to say woo woo woo people, these experiments
are taking us too far (to destroy our very existence). Let’s first sit
down and find responsible ways by reason, to reverse this cause. Like
say, surrender to Mother Nature and fully take charge of the available
remaining resources in peace. Not for selfish ambitions but rather in
a way that shall restore peace and justice for all human race and
nature?
I think we still have enough virgin land in Africa, Asia, and South
America that holds enough natural resources to reverse this
destructive venture that we have put ourselves into.
Can’t the human species find the reason of peace more appealing than
that of war and destruction?
Is not arrogance a sign of defeat that manifests its self on humans or
any living creature that has failed to find a way out of their death
trap?
Can anyone find sense in my reason or am I in may own little world?
Prem Das
Feb 14, 2009, 8:43:59 PM2/14/09
to jctc...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
If we indulge in a little bit of introspection, the fact that life is largely banal and inconsequential would be all be too evident. The clothes we wear says who we are. The cars we drive says we have reached a certain level, The neighbourhood we live says the class of people we belong too.
Since time immemorial this has been the driving force of the human race. Some cope , some fall by the wayside. Hence the class distinctions.
Do we attach some value judgements to all this ? For if you do, the same pattern seem to be the recurring theme in all aspects of all life on this planet. It is in the nature of things.
Life is not a democracy. Nature's implacable and immutable laws determine behaviour. The position is always, we go from ignorance to knowledge and from birth to death. The only way not to be part of this is not to be born at all.
We were the way we were those days, not because we were governed by some noble notions of civic mindedness or some innate wisdom of living responsibly. We didn't know better. We lived life as we found it.
I suggest we do the same. We accept things we cannot change. I find the process of living provides solutions to many of lifes problems. What I perceived in youth as problems are now my greatest strengths.
The human populations cannot keep burgeoning as it is now. Some thing has to give. How do we know the global warming that we are so sure is a problem, is instead a part of the solution. Change is a frightening thing. Maybe, that is all we are afraid of. Losing our comfort zones.
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:47:54 -0800
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> From: jctc...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
Since time immemorial this has been the driving force of the human race. Some cope , some fall by the wayside. Hence the class distinctions.
Do we attach some value judgements to all this ? For if you do, the same pattern seem to be the recurring theme in all aspects of all life on this planet. It is in the nature of things.
Life is not a democracy. Nature's implacable and immutable laws determine behaviour. The position is always, we go from ignorance to knowledge and from birth to death. The only way not to be part of this is not to be born at all.
We were the way we were those days, not because we were governed by some noble notions of civic mindedness or some innate wisdom of living responsibly. We didn't know better. We lived life as we found it.
I suggest we do the same. We accept things we cannot change. I find the process of living provides solutions to many of lifes problems. What I perceived in youth as problems are now my greatest strengths.
The human populations cannot keep burgeoning as it is now. Some thing has to give. How do we know the global warming that we are so sure is a problem, is instead a part of the solution. Change is a frightening thing. Maybe, that is all we are afraid of. Losing our comfort zones.
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:47:54 -0800
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> From: jctc...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
lj
Feb 16, 2009, 8:38:26 PM2/16/09
to AskPhilosophers
I very much like the way you have analyzed the issue in question.
Two things I, however will not fully agree with.
“Human population cannot....................
Unless with reference to specific geographic locations, there are many
parts of the world that still have minimal population e.g. Africa,
some parts of Asia.
Maybe locations such as china, US and UK could be those that human
population needs a good deal of attention. And these are the nations
that to a greater extent are dependant on extreme use of scientific
discoveries and it’s where you can find most people becoming
involuntarily “materialistic” for lack of better word.
It’s the material power exercised by these nations, for their
continues existence that has caused the global warming we talk about,
unnecessary wars, oppression of others and all sorts of bad deeds that
comes out of either person to national extreme selfish ambitions.
These are men made problems that can be addressed and resolved if
people stop acting out of fear that they may be attached and destroyed
like Iraq or loosing the “nice things” that science has offered them.
I bet the current president of Zimbabwe (Robert Mogabe) is one such an
individual who have showed to the world that material power can never
be a threat any more.
Given the current level of reasoning and understanding that the world
has reach at.
Human reason has never at any given time accepted that there are
things humans cannot resolved and these trend will never change.
Its good to accept the good things that scientific research and
experiment has offered. But when such reasons reach the level of
extremist, then it become societal responsibility to act as species
with unthinkable reasoning, in charge of their material existence to
stop it.
To succumb to it, is like allowing one sect of reason to out power and
destroy the whole.
To say there is nothing that can be done about it, sounds like "if
there be the end of human existence, let it be now".
Does this sound like an extremist reason for existence? Or does it
open a plate form for a little more debate? Or should some population
of people in US, UK and China be destroyed for a better result?
On Feb 15, 3:43 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If we indulge in a little bit of introspection, the fact that life is largely banal and inconsequential would be all be too evident. The clothes we wear says who we are. The cars we drive says we have reached a certain level, The neighbourhood we live says the class of people we belong too.
>
> Since time immemorial this has been the driving force of the human race. Some cope , some fall by the wayside. Hence the class distinctions.
>
> Do we attach some value judgements to all this ? For if you do, the same pattern seem to be the recurring theme in all aspects of all life on this planet. It is in the nature of things.
>
> Life is not a democracy. Nature's implacable and immutable laws determine behaviour. The position is always, we go from ignorance to knowledge and from birth to death. The only way not to be part of this is not to be born at all.
>
> We were the way we were those days, not because we were governed by some noble notions of civic mindedness or some innate wisdom of living responsibly. We didn't know better. We lived life as we found it.
>
> I suggest we do the same. We accept things we cannot change. I find the process of living provides solutions to many of lifes problems. What I perceived in youth as problems are now my greatest strengths.
>
> The human populations cannot keep burgeoning as it is now. Some thing has to give. How do we know the global warming that we are so sure is a problem, is instead a part of the solution. Change is a frightening thing. Maybe, that is all we are afraid of. Losing our comfort zones.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:47:54 -0800
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> > From: jctcen...@gmail.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Easily publish your photos to your Spaces with Photo Gallery.http://get.live.com/photogallery/overview- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Two things I, however will not fully agree with.
“Human population cannot....................
Unless with reference to specific geographic locations, there are many
parts of the world that still have minimal population e.g. Africa,
some parts of Asia.
Maybe locations such as china, US and UK could be those that human
population needs a good deal of attention. And these are the nations
that to a greater extent are dependant on extreme use of scientific
discoveries and it’s where you can find most people becoming
involuntarily “materialistic” for lack of better word.
It’s the material power exercised by these nations, for their
continues existence that has caused the global warming we talk about,
unnecessary wars, oppression of others and all sorts of bad deeds that
comes out of either person to national extreme selfish ambitions.
These are men made problems that can be addressed and resolved if
people stop acting out of fear that they may be attached and destroyed
like Iraq or loosing the “nice things” that science has offered them.
I bet the current president of Zimbabwe (Robert Mogabe) is one such an
individual who have showed to the world that material power can never
be a threat any more.
Given the current level of reasoning and understanding that the world
has reach at.
Human reason has never at any given time accepted that there are
things humans cannot resolved and these trend will never change.
Its good to accept the good things that scientific research and
experiment has offered. But when such reasons reach the level of
extremist, then it become societal responsibility to act as species
with unthinkable reasoning, in charge of their material existence to
stop it.
To succumb to it, is like allowing one sect of reason to out power and
destroy the whole.
To say there is nothing that can be done about it, sounds like "if
there be the end of human existence, let it be now".
Does this sound like an extremist reason for existence? Or does it
open a plate form for a little more debate? Or should some population
of people in US, UK and China be destroyed for a better result?
On Feb 15, 3:43 am, Prem Das <dasp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If we indulge in a little bit of introspection, the fact that life is largely banal and inconsequential would be all be too evident. The clothes we wear says who we are. The cars we drive says we have reached a certain level, The neighbourhood we live says the class of people we belong too.
>
> Since time immemorial this has been the driving force of the human race. Some cope , some fall by the wayside. Hence the class distinctions.
>
> Do we attach some value judgements to all this ? For if you do, the same pattern seem to be the recurring theme in all aspects of all life on this planet. It is in the nature of things.
>
> Life is not a democracy. Nature's implacable and immutable laws determine behaviour. The position is always, we go from ignorance to knowledge and from birth to death. The only way not to be part of this is not to be born at all.
>
> We were the way we were those days, not because we were governed by some noble notions of civic mindedness or some innate wisdom of living responsibly. We didn't know better. We lived life as we found it.
>
> I suggest we do the same. We accept things we cannot change. I find the process of living provides solutions to many of lifes problems. What I perceived in youth as problems are now my greatest strengths.
>
> The human populations cannot keep burgeoning as it is now. Some thing has to give. How do we know the global warming that we are so sure is a problem, is instead a part of the solution. Change is a frightening thing. Maybe, that is all we are afraid of. Losing our comfort zones.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:47:54 -0800
> > Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> Easily publish your photos to your Spaces with Photo Gallery.http://get.live.com/photogallery/overview- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prem Das
Feb 17, 2009, 8:06:14 AM2/17/09
to jctc...@gmail.com, askphil...@googlegroups.com
I am glad my analysis is to your liking. I hate to disagree but shunting people around to ease overcrowding is a political non starter.
Like human egos, countries' collective national egos would make foreigners intergrating into local populations at best a recipe for disaster. (That there could be a solution to the population problem)
Do we believe the empty spaces of the world are just land lying fallow until such time as humans decide to put it to use. Are they not living spaces that contribute to the habitable nature of our world. Wild places like the Brazilian jungle are living breathing oxygen producing natural machines. They also regulate weather patterns and even in places as far away as Europe. They lock up carbon. We destroy them at our peril. But destroy them we are.
Populations are not the be all and end all of the equation. Populations have to be fed and watered. They have to be housed. Their mental health require recreational activities. Land is at the heart of all these activities.
As it is, arable land is already at a premium. Desertification as a direct result of human activity, scarcity of water because of overuse or climate change, is making inroads into this scarce commodity. This finite resource cannot satisfy the needs of an infinite beast like the population explosion.
So our backs are against the wall. But still, aren't extinctions natural occurrances. Don't we have ample evidences of major cataclysmic events in the past that had caused widespread extinctions. Was this planet compromised ? No, it rebounded and changed, for now, to provide the human specie the ideal condition to live and prosper. What does it matter if the human race has reached the end of its tenure. We would be dead to care. Bye Guys.
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:38:26 -0800
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> From: jctc...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
Like human egos, countries' collective national egos would make foreigners intergrating into local populations at best a recipe for disaster. (That there could be a solution to the population problem)
Do we believe the empty spaces of the world are just land lying fallow until such time as humans decide to put it to use. Are they not living spaces that contribute to the habitable nature of our world. Wild places like the Brazilian jungle are living breathing oxygen producing natural machines. They also regulate weather patterns and even in places as far away as Europe. They lock up carbon. We destroy them at our peril. But destroy them we are.
Populations are not the be all and end all of the equation. Populations have to be fed and watered. They have to be housed. Their mental health require recreational activities. Land is at the heart of all these activities.
As it is, arable land is already at a premium. Desertification as a direct result of human activity, scarcity of water because of overuse or climate change, is making inroads into this scarce commodity. This finite resource cannot satisfy the needs of an infinite beast like the population explosion.
So our backs are against the wall. But still, aren't extinctions natural occurrances. Don't we have ample evidences of major cataclysmic events in the past that had caused widespread extinctions. Was this planet compromised ? No, it rebounded and changed, for now, to provide the human specie the ideal condition to live and prosper. What does it matter if the human race has reached the end of its tenure. We would be dead to care. Bye Guys.
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:38:26 -0800
> Subject: [AskPhilosophers] Re: Reasoning a solution to global warming.
> From: jctc...@gmail.com
> To: AskPhil...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages