Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:16

I'm partly with Sushil on this. As humans we do have a free will and we do dream, or some of us do, about an alternative future. We can change our own behaviour and some of us do and have.

Yes we knock things down but we can and do also build them up again, replanting forests for example. Yes we have overpopulated the earth but for a long time now the richest of us have been voluntarily reproducing at below replacement rate.

We are not all bad. The trouble is that the bad and the easily led outnumber the good at the moment!

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:23

The reason we have reduced our fertility rate has little to do with "choice" I am afraid. We are following an evolutionary prime directive no more or les than folks in the third world who are having high multiple child families. That reproductive prime directive, roughly analogised in gambling terms is:

* If times are tough, be a high risk gambler (have lots of kids and hopefully, at least some of them might survive)

* If times are not tough, be a cautious prober (have fewer kids and invest everything in them)

Therefore, if we are to expect the rest of the world to reduce its fertility rate, then we must raise its standard of living to that which is (currently) in place here. But, you know as well as me Ken, that is not physically possible. There is no solution that we humans can implement. Lack of time, lack of resources and lack of capacity in our human nature ensures that.

This will end the only way it can.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:26

The availability of effective contraception, education of women and living standards (or moreso child mortality) are all relevant. However, when I was born in 1960 material standards were lower than now, but families were still small.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:29

kenneal - lagger wrote:I'm partly with Sushil on this. As humans we do have a free will and we do dream, or some of us do, about an alternative future. We can change our own behaviour and some of us do and have.

Yes we knock things down but we can and do also build them up again, replanting forests for example. Yes we have overpopulated the earth but for a long time now the richest of us have been voluntarily reproducing at below replacement rate.

We are not all bad. The trouble is that the bad and the easily led outnumber the good at the moment!

I'm not at all sure people have free will. From my own experience and contemplation, I think we don't.

Saying that, people are conditioned to act a certain way. Some will take a helpful active stance, others more passive for example.

The causal process which includes everything, and is ongoing and continuous, will determine how things turn out.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:34

Snail wrote:I'm not at all sure people have free will. From my own experience and contemplation, I think we don't.

It all depends what you mean by free will. People do tend to be habitual and will not necessarily respond to new information in an entirely rational manner, they are more likely to respond in a way based on their prejudices.

However, I don't think the argument that any decision a person takes in any circumstance is always pre-determined. Quantum physics implies certain uncertainties and within those uncertainties can lie free will.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:34

johnhemming2 wrote:The availability of effective contraception, education of women and living standards (or moreso child mortality) are all relevant. However, when I was born in 1960 material standards were lower than now, but families were still small.

The number of kids per family was bigger than today. Average number of kids in 1964 was 2.4. In 2009, it was 1.9

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11960183

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:37

johnhemming2 wrote:
Snail wrote:I'm not at all sure people have free will. From my own experience and contemplation, I think we don't.
It all depends what you mean by free will. People do tend to be habitual and will not necessarily respond to new information in an entirely rational manner, they are more likely to respond in a way based on their prejudices.

However, I don't think the argument that any decision a person takes in any circumstance is always pre-determined. Quantum physics implies certain uncertainties and within those uncertainties can lie free will.

Bollocks

Quantum physics doe NOT confer free will. It merely renders a deterministic universe also an unpredictable one. As compared to classical physics, which allows for a universe that is both deterministic and predictable. If only in principle.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:47

Dealing with your two points.

Historically a family of 2.4 was small.

Secondly I make the point that Quantum physics implies that as the universe is not entirely deterministic one could conclude that human decision making is not entirely deterministic.

Were the universe to be deterministic then it would raise questions as to whether free will actually exists.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Jul 2016, 14:51

johnhemming2 wrote:Dealing with your two points.

Historically a family of 2.4 was small.

It doesn't matter if it is "small", it was bigger than today. And, I would wager, in Victorian times, when times were harder still for most people, family sizes were bigger still.

Secondly, I make the point that Quantum physics implies that as the universe is not entirely deterministic one could conclude that human decision making is not entirely deterministic

Were the universe to be deterministic then it would raise questions as to whether free will actually exists.

Simply repeating the same error does not improve it Mr Hemming. Quantum physics does NOT imply the universes is less deterministic. It implies it is less predictable. These are different things. If you need to me to expand on what that difference means, I am prepared to do so.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2016, 16:15

In that reality is recognised by humanity as being observed and the observable state is not predictable notwithstanding the deterministic nature of the schroedinger equation it still results in a reality that is non-deterministic at a smaller scale.

In terms of family sizes my disagreement with you is on two levels:

a) That standard of living is not the only predictor as to family sizes. I identify two or three other components.

b) The standard of living we had in the 1960s is low compared to today, but still resulted in historically smaller family sizes.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 08 Jul 2016, 16:35

Why don't you two write in sentences that readers might be able to work out what you are trying to say? Even Microsoft's grammar checker might make it more readable. If you want something that could really help (and you do need help) try http://www.editorsoftware.com. Stylewriter could transform your writings and give them some meaning. I assume of course you were writing for others to read.

Automaton · Post by **Automaton** » 08 Jul 2016, 17:01

johnhemming2 wrote: It all depends what you mean by free will.

I think this is the crucial point. People don't usually understand what they are, as they've been taught to think that they are 'someone' who 'does things'. But that's not the case: they're not separate from the things they do, they are those things, those events if you like, the 'doing' of those events, and nothing more. It's the same problem I mentioned before, namely that people think they 'come into the world' rather than being something that grows from it, as part of it. In a sense they are no different from a plant that grows towards the light, that builds itself from the soil and the sun... entirely dependant on how their dna is expressed in the environment they find themselves in. There's no choice involved, and maybe more importantly, no need for there to be. If you think about it, how could we ever make any decision if it wasn't based on something (or many things)? Now some would say that we (quickly skirting past the question of what 'we' might actually mean, even though it's crucial) 'take advice' from our knowledge and experience, and then make our choice like some wise ruler making a judgement; but how would that ruler themselves be making the judgement? It's the little man inside the brain controlled by the little man inside his brain.... etc conundrum. And cannot be so. But what would free will really look like anyway? Surely it would be completely chaotic if not based in causality.

However I'm sure people will continue to believe they have free will, especially the religious, to whom it's pretty important. It's hard to give up, a bit of a mind-twister.

As for quantum physics, and the unpredictability of the observable... maybe that's simply because we have no way to take every causal effect into account well enough to make such predictions. Yet. Quantum physics itself is not random after all, so it's really a different problem from that of free will in the first place.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 08 Jul 2016, 19:07

johnhemming2 wrote:... People do tend to be habitual and will not necessarily respond to new information in an entirely rational manner, they are more likely to respond in a way based on their prejudices.
....

I have been having a "discussion" with a young person on Facebook about the referendum and mass migration and its unsustainability. Despite having argued her into the position of her only argument against my position being that I am "that person who doesn't like migrants" which is completely untrue, and I have told her so on many occasions, she still will not see the truth that mass migration is unsustainable. She even enlisted the help of a green friend, who added that we should cooperate at this time - true but we don't have to be in the EU to do that - who didn't put up a single argument against what I had said and she still won't come anywhere near agreeing anything.

Most people on both sides have voted with their hearts not their heads so I see no reason for criticising the Leavers any more than the Remainers. I think that the reaction of many Remainers to the loss, however, shows the amount of sentiment in their vote rather than rationality. I don't think that there would have been calls for another referendum if we had voted to remain. There would have been a lot of disappointment but no rattles thrown out of prams.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Jul 2016, 19:44

The petition calling for a new referendum was actually tabled by a leaver.

What you are encountering is a mixture of cognitive dissonance and rationalisation. People tend not to change their view when they are debating an issue. However, the debating process does influence others who are observing the debate, but not actually participating.

One of the difficulties conceptually on immigration is that people conflate the argument about the effects of large scale migration and how migrants are perceived.

The vast majority of migrants are good people just trying to improve their lives. However, there is sometimes (but not always) a conflict between their interests and the interests of the people living in the place that they are migrating to.

From a theoretical perspective this is a potential challenge to the property rights of the people in the area to which people are migrating. All of this is affected by the numbers of people migrating and the nature of any mainly economic conflict.

For example there are many really hard working people coming from Eastern Europe who are nice people and do a good job, but they undermine the position of the working poor whose wages are driven down.

The question, of course, is what you do about this. In particular it is my view that we should not subsidise this type of economic migration out of general taxation. Sadly we do.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Jul 2016, 19:57

johnhemming2 wrote:The petition calling for a new referendum was actually tabled by a leaver.

I think you'll find that was a hoax. He claimed to have started it "a month ago" but the petition is actually date-stamped 24th June.