Climate Change - increasingly horrible disasters loom

Earth's albedo is dropping like a rock according to NASA.

From 29.3% to 28.7% in just the last 3 years.

What is albedo ?

It's a measurement of the Earth's color. High albedo comes from whiter surfaces like snow and ice. Low albedo comes from dark surfaces like plants and ocean.

Why is albedo important ?

Darker surface absorb more solar radiation and convert it to heat (infrared radiation) which warms the planet and melts more snow and ice. This is a positive feedback loop which is in a spiral.

Our world is literally growing darker.

Moved to the Climate Change thread. We can discuss changing this thread title to be more generic but we don't need more threads for the environment

Seems like a consistent moral realist would have to permit the idea that certain actions they perceive as wrong could objectively be the right moral action. So there’s really nothing to tell you that Thanos doesn’t have the right idea of morality, other than where you have subjectively decided what the correct moral action is.

In my eyes some of the worst people who have ever lived have been motivated by a perverse sense of morality partially motivated by working towards an absolute goodness that no one could possibly disagree with.

This is the inner moral wrestling match, yes.

In your mind it’s impossible that anyone can have a more aligned relationship with ultimate reality than Thanos does?

This is why morality is more difficult than simply having the right destination.

Still, people who are captured by a bleak vision of the future are more dangerous in general than those who are aimed at lasting goodness.

1) The future is indeed bleak for the current version of human civilization which has consumption at its epicenter. The next version of human civilization may not be so bleak. There is just going to be a massive population filter between now and then which is not likely to be pleasant for those who get filtered out.

2) I'm not sure what you are referring to be "anti-human sentiment". Can you be more specific ? If you are referring to the fact that I see humans as being members of and descended from the animal kingdom .... then yes ..... I don't see humans as being non-animals as some do. I don't see that as anti-human. I'm pro-human and my objective is that our species survives. I can't think of anything more pro-human than that !!!

3) Yes .... i have an appetite for authoritarian measures. So do you my friend. Laws against murder, rape, theft, and the prohibition on private citizens acquiring weapons of mass destruction are all authoritarian. The opposite of a government with authority is anarchy. I'm not an anarchist ... are you ?

4) I believe that morality is a human construct which is effectively a code of behavior which contributes to tribal survival. Whatever helps us survive is deemed "good". A tribe needs cohesion and order. Morality is simply a behavioral code for maintaining cohesion and order in a tribe.

What I find interesting is that my opponent's rhetorical tactics here in this forum are all pivoting to attacking me and my character and completely avoiding factual investigation related to the substance of what I am suggesting. These are called "ad hominem attacks". When you can't win the argument on substance .... you pivot to attacking my character.

My criticisms are of the archetype you represent - the cynical, skeptical, faithless scientist.

I have no doubt you are a good scientist with plenty of data gathered through rigor. Still, life isn’t about doing good science.

You probably don’t like that I am stereotyping you, but I have no respect for how you’ve conducted yourself in our discussions about morality.

I think you are knowingly dishonest. I think you know I’m right about the connection between morality and quality of life — that people don’t commit suicide on behalf of “group selection”, but rather because their QOL is poor.

However, conceding your position on morality to mine would interfere with your political mission, wouldn’t it?

*I realize I have had a growing frustration with totalizing evolutionists who use “group selection” with dishonesty and ridiculousness. I realize I’m taking it out on you. I’ll stop and wait for a better target at a better time. Consider our dialogue finished.

I don’t think that if there is a moral realism that anyone could have access to it in principle. It ends up being people reflecting on their own positions and carrying them over as moral entities.

If you can’t in principle be wrong about propositions like “torturing babies for fun is wrong” then it’s not much of a moral realism. affirming everything that we think is uncontroversial about applied ethics doesn’t require a belief in stance independent moral entities.

This modern philosophy cult is garbage.

I don’t know when philosophy became decadent and counterproductive, and I don’t care enough about the institution to figure it out, but you’ve fully exhausted me at this point.

What’s the cult supposed to be? If you look at philpapers many people agree with moral realism. So me being a moral antirealist has nothing to do with philosophy.

The decadence from my point of view is this idea of creating your own private language to do philosophy, which is basically you and nut nut’s problem. If you really insist on it, you should do it in such a way where people know what you’re talking about.

This is the type of stuff I’m talking about. “Moral antirealist” is not a worthwhile identity. Neither is “moral realist”.

It’s similar in the Christian world. People identify with relatively meaningless identities (trinitarian, Arian, Nestorian, etc).

You try to have a meaningful moral discussion with someone and they respond with, “Well I’m [insert worthless identity] so I believe this.”

The point of morality isn’t to stimulate the intellect.

Identify with the good, with righteousness, with the hero, with truth, with the servant, with the child, etc. These are actually useful moral identities!

I agree moral antirealist is not a particularly useful label if you don’t furnish it with propositional content. Luckily I do, so it becomes more useful.

I would point out that the metaethical discussion was already ongoing and I just wanted to clarify where I thought some particularly unhelpful things were being said.

For instance, you said that it was a part of the supervillain checklist to be a moral antirealist. Again, I’m skeptical of that. Doesn’t seem particularly likely that the nazis believed that morality was stance dependent, or that it’s based off of expressions of dislike or like, or that there were no true moral propositions, etc. Seemed like they believed some very bad things (however you take that) were actually good things.

Question: Do you believe your preferences / desires are real?

Also, again, moral progress has very little to do with propositions. Do you believe me when I say this?

I am neither cynical, skeptical or faithless.

I believe in God.

My version of God = creation = nature = truth = everything.

So i don't see God as a judging deity who is separate from human and makes decisions about an afterlife.

If God is everything, then we are all part of God.

God is revealed in increasingly granular fashion through scientific investigation and inspiration which occasionally inhabits great minds like Newton, Einstein & Curie and relentless investigators like Edison. God is also revealed in dominant personalities like Lincoln, Gandhi and Hitler which are designed to be manifest when the circumstances fit their personality and environmental influences.

Gravity is part of God. Chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics all reveal God.

2,000 years ago, we didn't know **** about science compared to what we know know. But people hungered for an explanation and society needed a mechanism to create order. So people invented a story about an afterlife and brainwashed the public to fear an eternity in hell in order to keep them from misbehaving and maintain order. That's all nonsense and fairy tales for the gullible. We live and we die and the raw materials in our bodies are returned to nature.

What we imagine to be the soul or spirit is just the sum of a lot of biochemical reactions. Humans have very sophisticated brains with a shitload of wires. Those wires are programmed by our parents when we are young and we all need our parents to survive so there is a great incentive to believe everything mom and dad tell us.

So people from Europe and the Middel East all tend to follow Abrahamic religions while people in Asia follow other philosophies like Confucianism and Buddhism.

Do we really believe that God is misleading billions of people down the wrong path ? That's ludicrous nonsense. What kind of all powerful judging deity would do that ??

I feel completely connected to my understanding of God. The great physicist Werner Heisenberg said that science leads us to God.

In sum, you have me pegged all wrong if you identify me as skeptical, cynical and faithless just because I'm not a gullible brainwashed zombie like you.

Isn't it fascinating that in a thread devoted to climate change ..... no one besides me wants to talk about science and the foundation of the hypothesis that's its going to ruin human civilization as we know it ?

It's me and a bunch of ad hominem here attackers trying to pivot my character and beliefs.

No one is asking about the process by which these hypotheses are being reached. No one is asking for data and fundamental scientific understanding. Just a bunch of people who can't cope with the possibility that we have started some catastrophic and irreversible chain reactions and are pivoting to denial mechanisms.

This thread is about climate change (and apparently other ecological destruction since the mods don't want another broad based ecology thread), not our view of God or our personalities.

LET'S STICK TO SCIENCE & MATH AND THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN CLIMATE & HUMAN CIVILIZATION !!! THIS IS NOT ABOUT ME.

Yes I believe preferences and desires are real.

And moral progress is basically just people starting to agree on things. So if they agree on the same propositions then yeah.

NN gives preferences and desires no reality compared to the survival instinct. The only preference he gives reality to is his preference for survival. He has said this multiple times in different ways.

This is what I meant when I said he believes morality isn’t real. He’s not a “moral antirealist”; he’s proudly morally bankrupt.

Oh I definitely agree he’s not a moral antirealist. He seems to be a moral realist who indexes morality to survival (which to me just seems absurd re the example I gave about the aliens enslaving humanity but bringing as many of us into existence as possible to ensure our survival).

I think he’s confused and thinks he doesn’t believe in morality when a lot of what he says is in terms of him having access to the “true” morality.

Many such cases. Morality IS confusing but also foundational, which is why we need to make it conscious.

And btw NN, the moral character of the person matters at least as much as the data + argument being presented. Morality is subjective and personal, not just rational.

I believe morality is a synonym for behavior which contributes to tribal cohesion and survival.

So .... don't say that I don't believe in morality. That's my definition of morality.

And for God's sake .... this is a thread about climate change and it's impact on human civilization and how it is detrimental to human tribal survival.

According to my preference ... survival on Earth is preferable and extinction is bad. According to a Jehovah's Witness, Armageddon is the pathway to heaven and life on Earth must be destroyed.

Tell me checkraisdraw ...... how would decide which stance is "moral" ..... mine or the Jehovah's witness ? The contrast between our respective positions is total and black and white. In your opinion, is it immoral to destroy human life on Earth as a pathway to heaven ?

When you’re threatened with a flood of a certain size, you go into survival mode and hunker down.

When the great flood is coming, you need to find the ark to the new world.

Your survival instinct is permanently tied to the known world that’s about to be destroyed by the great flood. In this way, it actually dooms you by impeding you from taking the ark into the unknown (the inner world).

We agree NN. The great flood is coming.

Well, now that you guys mentionned god I'm totally convinced by your arguments.

Some people have to build the ark. God helps those who help themselves.

The ark we need is not a physical device. It's a new way of thinking which transcends tribalism and fear. It's a vessel of global cooperation.

So you agree with me after all .... morality is just personal preference. There is no absolute morality. No absolute right and wrong. No absolute good and bad.

it would be helpful for everyone if you could keep straight what you mean by morality because these are two different things.

No they aren't.

We have an instinctual baked in preference for our tribe's survival.

So morality is both a manifestation of our personal preference and our wish to belong to a tribe that survives.