Any young people out there? Does Honesty or Science matter?

Well you aren’t going to get into an argument with me that way. :wink:

We can either change our ways of life willingly or they will be forced upon us one way or the other.
I declared myself a minimalist back about '74. (Not that I'm unaware I've live a long way from genuine minimalism, it has been pleasantly modest.)

Currently, I feel lucky as can be spending our tenth year in a 600 sq ft cabin, out in the boonies. :slight_smile:

 

I hear you, but they don’t. Still don’t. In fact, the proverbial ‘they’ seem to get nothing but d… well, let’s just say disconnected.

 

You can’t green capitalism. Which is all the Green New Deal is an attempt to do
Well let me give you a dose of honesty in regard to the Green Deal. If we do not switch from fossil fuels in the next 40 years, there won’t be a Deal of any kind. This 1/2 lifetime will buy us the time to change the entire carbon based economy to an Alternate Clean Fuel economy.

Feast your eyes on this:

ENVIRONMENT 479,717 Forest loss this year (hectares) 645,829 Land lost to soil erosion this year (ha) 3,342,576,066 CO2 emissions this year (tons) 1,106,928 Desertification this year (hectares) 903,288 Toxic chemicals released in the environment this year (tons)

CO2 Emissions
Fossil CO2 Emissions (2016) 35,753,305,000 tons
Change +0.34%
Per capita 4.79 tons

ENERGY
315,219,202 Energy used today (MWh), of which:
268,332,384- from non-renewable sources (MWh)
47,469,263- from renewable sources (MWh)
1,975,179,184,543 Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh)
64,651,388 Oil pumped today (barrels)
1,483,426,051,271 Oil left (barrels)
15,470 Days to the end of oil (~42 years)
1,090,898,357,117 Natural Gas left (boe)
57,416 Days to the end of natural gas
4,308,935,672,688 Coal left (boe)
148,584 Days to the end of coal


https://www.worldometers.info/

You think it may be time for the human race to begin thinking about preserving this planet and ourselves, rather than being comfortable with things as they are until they are not?

“If we do not switch from fossil fuels in the next 40 years, there won’t be a Deal of any kind”

If people think that this is all that its going to take they are seriously deluded. And where did you get 40 years?

I’m not sure I’m convinced about this “missinggirl”. It’s always a bit disheartening when someone asks where you got something. The great equalizer of an internet forum is that YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET. And Write4U provides the data and the link. I took a class in my first semester in college, in 1978, on energy. The professor was not too impressed with renewables. I’m still not convinced that we can get enough of that solar energy and make it useful and, here’s the big one, keep growing. What we haven’t figured out is, how to shrink the population back to where it was 50 years ago or so, peacefully, and keep the same economic system we have. I think more and more are seeing that can’t be done.

The IPCC report, which the U.N. climate science body released Oct. 8, 2018, revealed that the best path to limiting warming to an increase of 1.5 C by 2100 involves cutting net human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions 45% by 2030 (12 years after the report was published) and then cutting emissions further to net zero by 2050.

 

Where does the 40 years come into it?

I think more and more are seeing that can’t be done.
and keeping the same economic system we have, can't be done in any event.
Climate change: Where we are in seven charts and what you can do to help Published. January 14, 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067


Since we can’t make the hard choices, they will be made for us.

 

@Missinggirl - just noticed I’m echoing what you wrote earlier.

So given the reality as you see it, where do we go from here?

How do you deal with it on a personal level? You know like: 'yup, we’re destroying this place, options look grim, but hey still have to get through today and live our day to days.

I should go to bed, but want to pull this thread back onto its track.

February 2, 2021 Jan Koenderink, "Esse est percipi - verum factum est" - Considering Hoffman's case.

Defending Physical Reality, because apparently somebody needs to.

Philosophy has and will continue to resemble a dog chasing its tail,

in contrast to science’s hound sniffing out its quarry.


<p style=“text-align: left;”></p>

Considering, "Esse est percipi & verum factum est"

(It is perceived to be & It is true)

Jan Koenderink, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

volume 22, pages 1530–1534(2015). September 18, 2015

(original 2800 words)


I’ve read a little bit about Jan Koenderink, no doubt he’s a brilliant man with many impressive accomplishments. I can’t hold a candle to this master of academia. Nor is my intention to dismiss him. But, fact remains this particular paper says much worth disputing. For me, it’s another example of what I refer to as getting lost within one’s own Mindscape and losing sight of physical reality.

The following is intended for students who think something is being missed by the masters. Students curious and motivated to do their own homework, to figure it out for themselves.

Koenderink. Abstract

I go into the historical roots of the fundamental issues relating to the “interface theory of perception,” concentrating on the sciences rather than on philosophy. …

I am mainly in sympathy with the concepts discussed in the target article. I have often used the “interface paradigm” myself (Koenderink, 2011, 2013) in vain attempts to kick people out of their mainstream slumber. The rare reactions, however, have been negative (e.g., Tyler, 2014). I foresee some frictions in getting the ideas of the authors accepted!

Yet the basic notions are hardly revolutionary. They occur in philosophy—that is, proto-science—from the earliest days, …

 


I find it interesting how Koenderink injects “Proto-science.”

Yes, philosophy gave birth to science. But make no mistake, modern philosophy remains philosophy as much as it ever was.

In philosophy, the coin of realm is rhetorical abilities.

In science, the coin of the realm is honest observations and constructive learning.

Philosophy has no standards of objectivity beyond the writer’s imagination and the ability to argue effectively.

Koenderink. Reality

The English word “reality” might be translated into German as either Realität or Wirklichkeit. This German distinction reveals a basic dichotomy. One reality is your awareness here and now, whereas the other reality is sometimes referred to as the physical world. …

 


This is where I believe it’s appropriate to step outside our imagined ‘god’s eye view’ and recognize our physical reality from the perspective of the creature within us.

The simple fact of us existing requires that we are a product of an unfathomably ancient evolutionary process. Nothing else makes rational or emotional sense.

That being the case, there is a physical reality that is ultimate, that simply is, and in some fundamental ways it has nothing to do humans, we just happen to be an incredibly lucky fluke. Billions of years worth of incredibly advantageous breaks. Very much like all the other creatures we share Earth with today, but we’re the epitome of complexity.

It feels to me like Koenderink and Hoffman and the like have lost sight of that fundament reality we were born into. I suspect because they are blinded by the brilliance of their own minds.

Koenderink. Awareness is not to be confused with consciousness, a notion of self, or reflective thought. It simply is. It is the ultimate subjective fact. Because it is not an objective—that is, public—fact, it is outside the reach of science.
How about the ultimate objective fact?

If awareness is outside of science, it’s because its a product of our Mindscape. Science is constrained, by physical reality, to studying physical reality. (Actually, human scientific ingenuity is figuring out strategies for eavesdropping on the mind - but I don’t think that detracts from the fundamental meta-physical nature of thoughts and awareness.)

Consider it in simpler straightforward terms. We are embedded within this physical reality - that simply is - and our bodies must react to the constraints of physics and the “laws” of nature to survive.

Our human minds are on an altogether different footing. The Mind is thoughts, unrestrained by the limitations of nature and the physical reality of this Earth.

Why not face, and then boldly acknowledge, and be humbled by the Physical Reality ~ Mindscape divide?

Koenderink. The mainstream is fully, albeit silently, committed to a belief—indeed, I can only call it a belief—in the “all seeing eye” (Koenderink, 2014). For instance, one aspect of the notion of “interface” involves its nonveridicality. Notice the touchstone that is applied.

It took physics a century to realize Kant’s (1787) “Copernican revolution” (mentioned in the preface to the 2nd edition of his Kritik der reinen Vernunft). A convenient date for this advance is 1894, with Heinrich Hertz’s (1894) ideas in Die Prinzipien der Mechanik in neuem Zusammenhange. Max Planck (1944) finished it off—for instance, when he held that the causality principle is neither true nor false, but an act of faith, or that mind is the matrix of all matter.

“Physical objects” have become recognized as symbolic forms, and physical reality as constructed from these.

Nobody “understands” physics, perhaps least of all physicists.


This is gratuitous and irritating hyperbole in the age of space travel and CERN, super computers, and the medical wonders we witness these days!

What level of absolute understanding is the author expecting? What will satisfy this philosophizing? Is it ever spelled out?

Impossible expectations not being realized, isn’t nature’s fault!

It simply exposes the folly of human gluttony. Too much is never enough, be it material or mental.

Koenderink. Physical reality has become our model, an interface. …
Here’s another example, this makes it sound as though it’s the defining that creates our reality. That’s what I mean by getting lost within our Mindscape.

If we can’t quite figure out everything, that’s no reason to question the fundamental soundness of the underlying physical reality itself.

Why second-guess the physical reality that made us? Wouldn’t it make more sense to start by questioning our own judgement calls?

After all, the quality of our questions dictates the quality of our answers.

source

I think what you are doing as a minimalist is fantastic. I think veganism is part of the equation and a well planned economy

And where did you get 40 years?
That's all the oil left at current consumption rates. See the above real time link to worldometers. After that whatever oil is left in the ground is not worth drilling.

If you don’t believe this I really urge you to watch Prof. Bartlett on the effects of the “exponential function”. If you are not familiar with this natural mathematical function, it’ll expand your capacity for understanding many things humans deal with on a daily basis.

This lecture is really interesting and informative. Give it a listen;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZA9Hnp3aV4&t=1092s

p.s. missinggirl, nice to meet you and welcome to CFI

 

<!–more–>We have already hit peak oil so total amount of oil reserves is not important. Nothing to do with policy in keeping temp increase below 1.5 degrees

 

What we haven’t figured out is, how to shrink the population back to where it was 50 years ago or so, peacefully, and keep the same economic system we have. I think more and more are seeing that can’t be done.
If we believe Bartlett, we wont have any choice in the matter. If we do not voluntarily achieve zero growth, nature will do it for us. It is said that we are already in the sixth extinction event, the Anthropocene epoch and our biological annihilation, and by the looks of it we may be stuck with a persistent pandemic, unless mankind becomes immune, which it won't.

I see the earth’s ecology as the equivalent of Pandora’s box, without the religion. We have allowed the sequestered CO2 to escape the box and are beginning to pay the price in climate change.

 

Population was and never will be the issue if we take CCs minimalists philosophy of life. Depopulation talk opens the door to eugenics.