Is THIS the Problem ?
I am going to take a crack at identifying a social disease which goes by the acronym T.H.I.S.
It stands for
Buddhism like most religions/etc has some good stuff that doesn't conflict with science. I'm ok until there's a demand for beliefs that can't be supported.
My friend was obsessed with determining which one was correct. His conclusion was that the more common perception was correct and that the less common perception was incorrect. He was obsessed with the idea of right and wrong and there being only one right answer. He couldn't cope with a world which might be different than what he perceived it to be.
I agree with this.
But would this also apply to knowing what's best for a world of 8 billion people - the different ideologies, economies, religion and cultural worldviews? Everyone’s convinced their perception is the correct one, but the world is way too complex and layered to be operated under some single lens.
Buddhism has an aspiration for an individual which is described as a boddhisatva.
A boddhisatva will have cultivated 4 qualities.
The first is metta which is a quality of lovingkindness toward the world and others which extends beyond humans to sentient (feeling) beings.
The second is sympathetic joy. The ability to be happy for others happiness independent of our own ego involvement.
The third is compassion. The understanding that others are prone to suffering for a variety of reasons. It results in a default approach to others which is not based in character judgment. An understanding that some behavior is situational rather than character based.
The fourth is equanimity. It requires a conquering of one's triggers and offers an alternative to reflexive fight or flight responses in favor of principled response or stillness. In my opinion, that's the most difficult quality to manifest.
In my experience, the people who have cultivated these attributes seem to be more peaceful and happy. I don't have a lot of objective data to support it. It's more intuitive.
Buddhism has a code of ethics which is embodied in the Eightfold Path. It teaches its adherents not to kill.
The thing which Buddhism is relatively silent about that I find lacking is something the Buddha need not have concerned himself with 2500 years ago. The ability of humans to destroy themselves via environmental overshoot. Buddhism is relatively silent about dealing with such a threat in self-defense.
Buddhism like most religions/etc has some good stuff that doesn't conflict with science. I'm ok until there's a demand for beliefs that can't be supported.
The Buddha didn't teach anything that conflicted with science.
There have been followers who have attempted to deify him or stratified its adherents into gurus and their followers.
I view buddhism as something akin to medical advice for the mind. To me, it's a way of life, not a religion or a set of beliefs. In my opinion, a person can be both a practicing Christian or atheist (or whatever else they believe in) and a practicing buddhist. They are not mutually exclusive.
I'm generally sympathetic to it. i do pretty well on the compassion and no violence score. I'm not as a pacifist but higher than many buddhists. Necessary violence without hatred is good imo
I prefer a rationalist view of karma and by reincarnation it's getting silly
I agree with this.
But would this also apply to knowing what's best for a world of 8 billion people - the different ideologies, economies, religion and cultural worldviews? Everyone’s convinced their perception is the correct one, but the world is way too complex and layered to be operated under some single lens.
As I mentioned earlier: Experts don't even agree on how to run a high school, let alone a whole government.
I agree with this.
But would this also apply to knowing what's best for a world of 8 billion people - the different ideologies, economies, religion and cultural worldviews? Everyone’s convinced their perception is the correct one, but the world is way too complex and layered to be operated under some single lens.
There are some things which are not all that complex.
After their original demonstration 80 years ago, the world seems to have come to the rational conclusion that nuclear weapons are not going to be successful tools of offensive warfare. Mutually assured destruction keeps those weapons from being deployed. That non-deployment seems to not require that we align on the various ideologies, economies, religious and cultural worldviews. Survival transcends all of those tribal differences.
At some point, the same principles will be applied to other deadly toxins.
We're not that far from committing ourselves to such drastic outcomes such as stopping the overturning ocean circulation from materially stopping for the first time in 13,000 years. Human civilization has arisen over the last 10,000 years during an anomalously stable period during which sea levels have varied by only a few feet. During the 10,000 years before that, they increased by hundreds of feet.
When we begin to grasp the potentially for mutually assured destruction through means other than nuclear war, we will adapt. It will not require changes in religious views ...... but it will require changes in economic policy.
There are a few extreme religious beliefs like rapture which require the destruction of earth habitat en route to heaven, but for the most people, survival is the imperative and I'm pretty confident that we'll evolve accordingly. Our stubbornness will make it extremely painful.
I agree. Reincarnation is not central to buddhism and the buddha didn't teach it.
That doesn't stop some from hijacking his teaching and attaching reincarnation to it. Just as people have hijacked the teachings of Jesus.
As I mentioned earlier: Experts don't even agree on how to run a high school, let alone a whole government.
Some things are not in the hands of "experts".
Sometimes things change organically as a result of too many people experiencing too much pain. Systems reach their limits. People rebel.
There are some things which are not all that complex. After their original demonstration 80 years ago, the world seems to have come to the rational conclusion that nuclear weapons are not going to be successful tools of offensive warfare. Mutually assured destruction keeps those weapons from being deployed. That non-deployment seems to not require that we align on the various i
That's a pretty long winded answer to say ... no, the world is exactly how I see it.
That's indeed how I see it based upon the evidence at my disposal.
If you would like to present an outlook which points to an alternative perspective, I would be happy to read it, especially if the outlook is accompanied by evidence which supports that alternative view.
I value debate and think the world is best supported by a vigorous competition about ideas. I learn by being challenged and hopefully others do too.
I long for a world in which we emulate some scientific ideal. Where we can vigorously debate and criticize ideas without obsessing or connecting to allegations about a person's character.
Each of us is shaped by forces beyond our control. We don't choose our parents of childhood environments.
I grew up after TV was invented. I was a Jewish child exposed to footage of Nazi war atrocities. One tribe engaged in the act of killing off another tribe and the brainwashing of the killer tribe that dehumanized the tribe to be eliminated and I belonged to. We became "parasites" (Just as right wing Israeli's have currently labeled the people of Gaza).
There was no debate in Germany during the 1940's about the Final Solution. That inclination to bind together in tribal warfare is deeply embedded in our genetic makeup and we don't discuss it objectively because we don't like to acknowledge that we would have done the same in their situation.
Everyone can do a personal inventory to assess their own tribal inclinations .... ask yourself who the members of your tribe are ..... family, friends, coworkers, collaborators ...... and ask yourself how much variety there exists in behavior among members of your tribe. What are the rules and taboos of your tribe ?
I'm an American Boomer. My tribe has a general ban on discussion of carbon footprint math. No discussion of whether carbon emitting behavior has a moral component to it.
As I mentioned earlier: Experts don't even agree on how to run a high school, let alone a whole government.
Right, and it's explained in Poli Sci 101 that there will never be a consensus among experts on the ideal political system.
But we are seeing the psychological drive to override that basic reality in real life. Power is such an intoxicating drug.
it's explained in Poli Sci 101 that there will never be a consensus among experts on the ideal political system.
Impossible perfection should not be the enemy of the good.
I think we can maintain a spirit of innovation and trying to improve.
That's the spirit in which Temporal Hierarchical Identity Syndrome (THIS) was offered. An attempt to name a mass psychological condition which has heretofore not been named.
It's perhaps a fancy way of addressing tribal conflict with the added nuance of identifying generational tribal differences.
If human tribes have a recurring pattern of erring via ignorance and indifference, maybe we can learn to be on the lookout instead of getting bashed on the head every 80-100 years.
Recently released poll. 40% of American women age 15-44 would move abroad if given the opportunity. Higher than any other Western country.
19% of men 15-44 feel the same. Biggest gender gap in the world.
I am enjoying the Nut/craig show. More please.
Ok we read it very differently or saw something very different.
Maybe another part of our failure to communicate. We come from such different places (I don't mean geographically)
Upon further reflection, I think that my main problem with this book was that I read it at the same time I happened to be reading and studying a bunch of Greek philosophy. Pirsig's understanding of Greek philosophy seemed superficial in a lot of respects and, in other respects, flat out wrong. The most obvious example was his misunderstanding of the Greek philosophical concept of virtue. That was a huge turn-off to me at the time. I suspect you would say that his actual understanding of Greek philosophy isn't really the point, which I suppose is true.
That's indeed how I see it based upon the evidence at my disposal. If you would like to present an outlook which points to an alternative perspective, I would be happy to read it, especially if the outlook is accompanied by evidence which supports that alternative view. I value debate and think the world is best supported by a vigorous competition about ideas. I learn by being
How are you going to monitor, from individuals to entire countries, to ensure that they follow your emissions guidlines and how are you going prevent or punish the bad actors who do?
I suppose I can take a whack at explaining sea level rise ..... one of the chronic outcomes of climate change, as opposed to events like destructive hurricanes, wildfires, droughts and floods.
Sea level is rising globally as a result of two major factors. Thermal expansion as water warms and loss of land based ice. Loss of land based ice is accelerated by the loss of buttressing provided by ice shelves which float on water.
There is a massive difference in rates of regional sea level rise and this is where places like Florida along the US gulf and east coast are going to hit much worse than the global average.
Factors impacting regional sea level rise.
1) Gravitational forces
As the mass of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica shrink, they exert less gravitational pull and distant continental masses exert more.
2) Change in ocean circulation
The AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation) is a current which transfers heat from the tropics to the N Atlantic at rates up to ~ 20 sverdrups. The current is like a vacuum cleaner which is always on and is sucking water off of the US east / gulf coast .... thereby reducing sea level. As the current weakens, less water is sucked off the coastline and it begins to pile up.
3) Land rising / subsidence
Land moves up and down. Some of this is due to ancient forces such as slow rebounding from ice age pressure that was relaxed many millennia in the past. Some sinking is due to ground water extraction which results in compressive sinking.
While the global sea level has risen about 2.5" during the last 15 years .....
The regional sea levels in many locations along the SE US and gulf coast have been 6" +.
That rate of regional increase (already > 1 meter per century) is poised to accelerate as the AMOC slows further and buttressing from places like Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica is lost.
Further complication from the 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle will result in maximum tidal amplitude in the mid 2030's. King tide flooding will be maximized.
And South Florida's geology can't be defended ..... it's porous limestone. The ocean can't be blocked off from below and will increasingly penetrate the fresh water acquifers that Floridians depend upon for drinking water.
In GoT, the famous Stark quote was "winter is coming". In real life, water is coming and it doesn't seem like we humans have anything in our quiver to stop it.
Here's an article on some of the US locations where sea levels have risen 6"+ in the last 15 years.
That's a lot of steps into the future. We are going to require the equivalent of a global treaty which includes the answers to your questions. (Paris Accord was not a treaty)That must be preceded by the election of a US govt willing to enter into such a treaty. Such an election would only become possible as a result of immense pain due to climate change and change in voting de
Dude, it's just not conversationally possible to track every smokestack or vehicle or farm or anything of that scope. The US can't do it in it's own borders, let alone Russia, China India and all the rest.
Florida real estate isn't going to move the needle on people coming together on anything - let alone correctly reporting, altering, hiding moving or a million other things. And we aren't even tapping into those would be saving billions to go against you at the macro level and all the rest. And 5000 other issues.
It's a joke of a conversation but I did walk into it.
Some things are not in the hands of "experts".
Sometimes things change organically as a result of too many people experiencing too much pain. Systems reach their limits. People rebel.
My point is that there is nothing close to a consensus on how government can (or even ought) to be used to 'solve' problems like climate change or racism or anything else. Especially on a global level.
My point is that there is nothing close to a consensus on how government can (or even ought) to be used to 'solve' problems like climate change or racism or anything else. Especially on a global level.
Of course there's no consensus !
The median citizen sucks at math and science so they have no clue how these problems will manifest and how they need to be solved.
There was also no consensus on how to build a nuclear weapon. That's why the process was handled by a relatively small team of experts.
Of course there's no consensus !
The median citizen sucks at math and science so they have no clue how these problems will manifest and how they need to be solved.
There was also no consensus on how to build a nuclear weapon. That's why the process was handled by a relatively small team of experts.
It's been the case for thousands of years that there is little agreement on what is the best form of government. And there is no reason to think that will ever change, especially at the global level.
Building a nuclear weapon is about engineering; the mousetrap successfully traps the mouse or it doesn't
Government isn't merely an engineering problem. Cultures and individuals have different objectives for what government is or is not supposed to do.
Dude, it's just not conversationally possible to track every smokestack or vehicle or farm or anything of that scope. The US can't do it in it's own borders, let alone Russia, China India and all the rest.Florida real estate isn't going to move the needle on people coming together on anything - let alone correctly reporting, altering, hiding moving or a million other things.
First of all .... there would have to be an international treaty.
Second .... we wouldn't be taking fuel away from farming. That would lead to mass starvation. We wouldn't stop heating and cooling residences. People need shelter.
Third, fossil fuel is not a difficult thing to trace ..... it originates in places like refineries and coal mines. As long as you control it at the source of distribution, it's not going to wind up being used for unnecessary purposes.
Florida real estate is just an example of coastal real estate around the globe. I don't think people have a lot of appreciation for how stable remarkably sea levels and coastlines have been for the last 10,000 years. They have basically been the same. +/- 1 foot. In the 10,000 years prior to that, they rose ~ 200 ft. Things are starting to move again in ways that cannot be stopped. The energy added to the Earth's oceans in the last half century is over 25 billion x the energy released from a Hiroshima class nuke, You can't stick a pipe in the ocean and vent all that energy to outer space.
We have initiated feedback loops which are unstoppable.
