PowerSwitch

I am currently researching for a book, including what currently exists in terms of post-collapse philosophy. I have just received a book on post-collapse ethics and I am astonished at just how deluded it is. It is called "Ethics for a Broken World: Imagining philosophy after catastrophe."

https://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Ethics-Broken- ... 844654885/

The entire book is written from the perspective of a future philosopher in an ecologically broken world. The problem is that the author has imagined a future timeline where his leftist fantasy has come true, and is condemning people of our own age for not making it come true fast enough. The basic premise upon which the whole book is based is that the idea of nations and national boundaries will "become untenable" due to the ethical demands of a post-catastrophic world. In his fantasy world, there are no nations and no borders, thus avoiding the worst of the real ethical dilemmas that are coming our way. He does not explain how this will happen, of course. He just assumes it "must" happen, because the alternative is ethically unthinkable.

This is ethics at its worst: an idealistic, holier-than-thou fantasy which will not survive first contact with reality. I'd like to say that I am astonished Routledge published it, but I'm not. Modern academic philosophy is mostly in the same hopeless rut as the rest of academia. That's why Jem Bendell's "Deep Adaptation" movement does not seem to be going anywhere -- very few people are willing to put their head above the parapet and speak the truth, even though the whole purpose of that movement is to encourage them to do exactly that. Their careers depend on toeing the accepted line, just like the attendees of COP, and just like the scientists who have systematically downplayed their conclusions. Never, ever admit how bad it is actually going to get.

Are you familiar with Patrick (William) Ophus?

He's not afraid to say it how it is. Recent podcast:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ ... ick-ophuls

clv101 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 13:52 Are you familiar with Patrick (William) Ophus?

He's not afraid to say it how it is. Recent podcast:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ ... ick-ophuls

No, and I will give it a listen tonight.

clv101 wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 13:52 Are you familiar with Patrick (William) Ophus?

He's not afraid to say it how it is. Recent podcast:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ ... ick-ophuls

Very good. There must be a way of explaining this to much more people. The problem is getting them to want to read and understand it.

The situation seems to be like the 1966 StarTrek episode “The conscience of the king”. Except of course there is no fleet of rescue ships, delayed or not. There is no ethical solution, the end result is that the strong will live and the weak (are already) dieing. The question is , what will you do as an individual? Most of the (strong) survivors will continue wasting resources until the next crisis as they delude themselves as to the real dilemma.

PS_RalphW wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 07:28 The situation seems to be like the 1966 StarTrek episode “The conscience of the king”. Except of course there is no fleet of rescue ships, delayed or not. There is no ethical solution, the end result is that the strong will live and the weak (are already) dieing. The question is , what will you do as an individual? Most of the (strong) survivors will continue wasting resources until the next crisis as they delude themselves as to the real dilemma.

I think it is not so clear cut. Natural selection doesn't just operate at the level of individuals, and that is especially so in this situation because Homo sapiens is part-way through an evolutionary transition from tribalism to civilisation. The process is clearly not finished, since the most advanced version of civilisation we have yet invented is fundamentally ecologically unsustainable. So while within all societies there will be a process of the strong individuals surviving at the expense of the weak, there will also be a process of whereby the "strongest" forms of society survive at the expense of the weakest ones. The question is what does "strongest" even mean in this context? "Best able to adapt" maybe. Although you look at the Amish and wonder whether they may turn out to have a very good strategy precisely because they refused to adapt to modernity.

As an individual you have every right to do your best to improve your own survival prospects, but improving the survival prospects of your family, community and country are compatible with that aim. It doesn't have to be all about your individual self.

UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 10:08 As an individual you have every right to do your best to improve your own survival prospects, but improving the survival prospects of your family, community and country are compatible with that aim. It doesn't have to be all about your individual self.

But it is..all about ourselves. This chart does what it does for a reason. Oh sure, we wish we could do something about it, a reasonable number of folks
even do, and some get some credit for it..they feel good...keep eating granola or whatever....most everyone else though...well...the chart just keeps score, demonstrating the collective will of our species.

johnny wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 23:55
But it is..all about ourselves.

Do not expect a response from me. Your sole purpose here is to spread misinformation and wind people up, and I am not interested in taking the bait. I do not read your posts.

UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 07:55

johnny wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 23:55
But it is..all about ourselves.

Do not expect a response from me. Your sole purpose here is to spread misinformation and wind people up, and I am not interested in taking the bait. I do not read your posts.

Your problem is that you get too upset when people say things you don't agree with and start insulting them.

I would guess johnny is from the US where fossil energy is in abundance and they don't mind using it. I recall George HW Bush saying the American way of life is not negotiable at the Rio summit. The UK by contrast is now quite energy poor somewhat due to endemic mismanagement and malign foreign influence on its energy policy. Hence this forum. One day the US will be energy poor once all the fracked wells have depleted but it is a big place and plenty of places to dig. They are getting hit by climate change a lot worse than the UK is and probably will continue to do so in the future.

In the end you are right, just ignore them.

BritDownUnder wrote: ↑09 Mar 2023, 01:44

UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑08 Mar 2023, 07:55

johnny wrote: ↑07 Mar 2023, 23:55
But it is..all about ourselves.

Do not expect a response from me. Your sole purpose here is to spread misinformation and wind people up, and I am not interested in taking the bait. I do not read your posts.

Your problem is that you get too upset when people say things you don't agree with and start insulting them.

I would guess johnny is from the US where fossil energy is in abundance and they don't mind using it. I recall George HW Bush saying the American way of life is not negotiable at the Rio summit. The UK by contrast is now quite energy poor somewhat due to endemic mismanagement and malign foreign influence on its energy policy. Hence this forum. One day the US will be energy poor once all the fracked wells have depleted but it is a big place and plenty of places to dig. They are getting hit by climate change a lot worse than the UK is and probably will continue to do so in the future.

In the end you are right, just ignore them.

Are you aware of RGR's history? This person is a super-troll who has been repeatedly removed from this forum but keeps coming back.