Is eco-civilisation compatible with democracy?

[UndercoverElephant]

There thus arises [among those in power] a new belief in power: first, the power of man in his conflicts with nature, and then the power of rulers as against the human beings whose beliefs and aspirations they seek to control by scientific propaganda, especially education. The result is diminution of fixity: no change seems possible. Nature is raw material; so is that part of the human race which does not effectively participate in government. There are certain old conceptions which represent men's belief in the limits of human power, of these the two chief are God and truth.[...] Such conceptions tend to melt away; even if not explicitly negated, they lose importance, and are retained only superficially. This whole outlook is new, and it is impossible to say how mankind will adapt itself to it. It has already produced immense cataclysms, and will no doubt produce others in the future. To frame a philosophy capable of coping with men intoxicated with the prospect of almost unlimited power and also with the apathy of the powerless is the most pressing task of our time.

Though many still sincerely believe in human equality and theoretical democracy, the imagination of modern people is deeply affected by the pattern of social organisation suggested by the organisation of industry in the nineteenth century, which is essentially undemocratic. On the one hand there are the captains of industry, and on the other the mass of workers. This disruption of democracy from within is not yet acknowledged by ordinary citizens in democratic countries, but it has been a preoccupation of most philosophers from Hegel onwards, and the sharp opposition which they discovered between the interests of the many and those of the few has found practical expression in Fascism. Of the philosophers, Nietzsche was unashamedly on the side of the few, Marx whole-heartedly on the side of the many. Perhaps Bentham was the only one of importance who attempted a reconcilitation of conflicting interests; he therefore incurred the hostility of both parties.

To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationships, it will be essential to recognise the necessary limitations of mens' power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other.

Bertrand Russell, in his History of Western Philosophy. 1943.

[johnny]

ARGUING against "the observable and factual characteristics of human behavior"

That's why it needs a history of western civilisation and philosophy.

Is there no one else who has already done this?

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there no one else who has already done this?

Plenty of people have written a history of western philosophy and civilisation. Nobody has done it from the perspective of a person who has accepted that civilisation as we know it is going to collapse. This changes the entire context of how it can be presented and what can legitimately be said, and that applies to both philosophy and politics. Politics exists in a state of pre-collapse denial. Philosophy is in a state of post-Wittgensteinian postmodernist subjectivism. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

All previous histories of western philosophy were presented in a context of progress. This has been true from Descartes onwards, and especially post-Hegel. The only modern philosophy which does not fit this pattern is anarchistic -- it accepts that civilisation as we know it can't survive, but then parts company with reality.

Collapse offers an opportunity for radical change. This too is a message from history: the event which set in motion the process that led to our civilisation emerging in the 16th/17th centuries was the Black Death in 1348/49. Not just because it sorted out the overpopulation problem, but because the shock of living through it caused people to radically rethink the nature of reality and society. To reconsider the foundations of their belief system.

[Potemkin Villager]

Philosophy is in a state of post-Wittgensteinian postmodernist subjectivism. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

Sounds painful!

Looking back at your starting point re China's eco aspirations.

I remember back in the 70s alternative types got quite excited by the fact that so many people in China rode bicycles
and the country was held up as a sort of sustainability poster pin up.

An authoritarian government vigorously pursued various top down approaches including the blessed cultural revolution
and the particularly disastrous great leap forward. They then settled on turbo state capitalism with some success so far where party functionaries "encouraged" peasants to become wage slaves, give up land for development and move into (expensive) modern high rise accommodation .

Now that plan is hitting limits of growth they seem to about to do a massive u-turn which will probably trigger massive unpredictable reactions and outcomes.

[UndercoverElephant]

Philosophy is in a state of post-Wittgensteinian postmodernist subjectivism. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.

Sounds painful!

Looking back at your starting point re China's eco aspirations.

I remember back in the 70s alternative types got quite excited by the fact that so many people in China rode bicycles
and the country was held up as a sort of sustainability poster pin up.

An authoritarian government vigorously pursued various top down approaches including the blessed cultural revolution
and the particularly disastrous great leap forward. They then settled on turbo state capitalism with some success so far where party functionaries "encouraged" peasants to become wage slaves, give up land for development and move into (expensive) modern high rise accommodation .

Now that plan is hitting limits of growth they seem to about to do a massive u-turn which will probably trigger massive unpredictable reactions and outcomes.

I do not pretend to have any idea what is going to happen in China, and that is one thing I will be steering well clear of in the book. It is a very useful starting point for me just to recognise that China has defined "ecocivilisation" and stated it to be an official goal. It may well be that a liberal democracy ultimately gets there first. All I am really saying is that we need to start talking about it, and we need to start by establishing what is true and what is real, and what is not, and what might be. Just getting that far, I believe, will be enough to set the wheels in motion.

[johnny]

Is there no one else who has already done this?

Plenty of people have written a history of western philosophy and civilisation. Nobody has done it from the perspective of a person who has accepted that civilisation as we know it is going to collapse.

Well, I'm sure that no one has written a history of western philosophy and civilization from the perspective of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster either. So your basis is different from the growth folks, and the Spaghetti Folks, and so on and so forth.

The beauty, or advantage, of philosophy I suppose? A mind bogglingly infinitum of irrefutable conclusions to others. There is a philosophical question for a qualified philosopher such as yourself....when conclusions from philosophy can be infinitely variable, and all irrefutable...which one is correct?

[UndercoverElephant]

Is there no one else who has already done this?

Plenty of people have written a history of western philosophy and civilisation. Nobody has done it from the perspective of a person who has accepted that civilisation as we know it is going to collapse.

Well, I'm sure that no one has written a history of western philosophy and civilization from the perspective of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster either. So your basis is different from the growth folks, and the Spaghetti Folks, and so on and so forth.

The difference being that the FSM isn't real, but collapse is. The world as we know it is both unsustainable and unreformable. It is therefore going to come to an involuntary end. I begin the book by assuming the reader is sympathetic to this point of view. Any person who is not sympathetic to it is not the target audience. From the point of view of the book, they are irrelevant.

The beauty, or advantage, of philosophy I suppose? A mind bogglingly infinitum of irrefutable conclusions to others. There is a philosophical question for a qualified philosopher such as yourself....when conclusions from philosophy can be infinitely variable, and all irrefutable...which one is correct?

You are asking how we know what is true, or what is real. That is precisely what the book is about. The modern western world has a broken relationship with the truth. I believe this is the result of a philosophical mistake and that we are currently on the verge of a major paradigm shift which recognises this, and fixes it. This is a core claim I am making, and the only way I can explain it to people is via an historical account of how the mistake happened.

We live in a post-truth world. This is going to have to change. It turns out there is such a thing as the truth after all.

[johnny]

The difference being that the FSM isn't real, but collapse is.

I've got news for a philosopher...religion is real. You don't like the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion? Fine. Substitute in Mormons. They have been prepping for collapse longer than you've been alive. The Church of Peak Oil seemed pretty real as well...until it wasn't. I've never understood why the excuses were needed, if someone wants to prep, why the need to manufacture ridiculous scenarios to justify it?

The world as we know it is both unsustainable and unreformable.

Of course. Some even knew that it certainly wasn't going to be caused by peak oil that the rubes fell for way back when. And so what? We've discussed this before...the Sun is getting lighter. The physics of what happen next aren't in dispute, so regardless of how many humans live to see the future, the species will be boiled away just like the oceans.

It is therefore going to come to an involuntary end. I begin the book by assuming the reader is sympathetic to this point of view. Any person who is not sympathetic to it is not the target audience. From the point of view of the book, they are irrelevant.

How can any informed individual NOT understand that the world ends? And be correspondingly sympathetic, because they will end too! No need for philosophy on this point...the Sun is getting lighter...the physics of the species demise is a given.

It strikes me that religion might be more soothing to folks than prepping, as it promises something after the species is wiped from the planet, regardless of why.

The beauty, or advantage, of philosophy I suppose? A mind bogglingly infinitum of irrefutable conclusions to others. There is a philosophical question for a qualified philosopher such as yourself....when conclusions from philosophy can be infinitely variable, and all irrefutable...which one is correct?

You are asking how we know what is true, or what is real. That is precisely what the book is about. The modern western world has a broken relationship with the truth.

Quite correct what I said can be rephrased as what is real, and your intent is to be able to prove that all conclusions from philosophy are both infinitely variable and all are irrefutable? Or is an answer from a philosophical perspective just like religion, just believe whatever makes you happy and move along, pretending it is true being good enough to make it true in the universe of philosophy being all things to all people in any way they'd like?

I believe this is the result of a philosophical mistake and that we are currently on the verge of a major paradigm shift which recognises this, and fixes it. This is a core claim I am making, and the only way I can explain it to people is via an historical account of how the mistake happened.

Well, it sounds like a huge undertaking, particularly with the admission of what passes for "real" from a philosophical perspective.

We live in a post-truth world. This is going to have to change. It turns out there is such a thing as the truth after all.

In a world of infinitely variable "truths" and all of them irrefutable...no...there isn't any truth. There is just believe whatever you want and because you believe it, it must be true. Sounds like a fundamental philosophical breakthrough explaining the peak oilers of yesteryear though doesn't it?

[UndercoverElephant]

I've got news for a philosopher...religion is real. You don't like the Flying Spaghetti Monster religion? Fine. Substitute in Mormons. They have been prepping for collapse longer than you've been alive. The Church of Peak Oil seemed pretty real as well...until it wasn't. I've never understood why the excuses were needed, if someone wants to prep, why the need to manufacture ridiculous scenarios to justify it?

Not sure what your point is. Of course religions are real.

The world as we know it is both unsustainable and unreformable.

Of course. Some even knew that it certainly wasn't going to be caused by peak oil that the rubes fell for way back when. And so what? We've discussed this before...the Sun is getting lighter. The physics of what happen next aren't in dispute, so regardless of how many humans live to see the future, the species will be boiled away just like the oceans.

At this point I doubt I am going to make it to the end of your post. I will only reply to anything actually worth responding to.

Quite correct what I said can be rephrased as what is real, and your intent is to be able to prove that all conclusions from philosophy are both infinitely variable and all are irrefutable? Or is an answer from a philosophical perspective just like religion, just believe whatever makes you happy and move along, pretending it is true being good enough to make it true in the universe of philosophy being all things to all people in any way they'd like?

Not possible to answer in less than 200,000 words.

In a world of infinitely variable "truths" and all of them irrefutable...no...there isn't any truth. There is just believe whatever you want and because you believe it, it must be true.

That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with western civilisation. The book I am writing is an attempt to explain how we ended up in this mess, and that there is, in fact, a way out of it. A paradigm shift is required in science. Until this happens, the wider cultural change will remain blocked.

[Catweazle]

As a species that is ultimately doomed, along with all other life on Earth, what is the ultimate we can achieve before our extinction ?

Nothing will survive physically, so anything we can build will perish, could our ultimate achievement be an idea ? If so, does having thought it mean that it will exist long after we are cosmic dust ?

Could the ultimate legacy of the human race actually spring from a philosophers mind ?

[UndercoverElephant]

As a species that is ultimately doomed, along with all other life on Earth, what is the ultimate we can achieve before our extinction ?

If we can sort out our ecological problems then the possibilities are infinite. Ecocivilisation would be my vote for the ultimate achievement, but that can't come from one person's head.

Nothing will survive physically, so anything we can build will perish, could our ultimate achievement be an idea?

Maybe. Depends how you define "ultimate".

If so, does having thought it mean that it will exist long after we are cosmic dust ?

Could the ultimate legacy of the human race actually spring from a philosophers mind ?

I very much doubt it. Although I think the question is probably the wrong question to ask, in the sense that it doesn't really have an answer.

I hope you don't think that's what I am hoping to achieve. All I am actually trying to do is bring together a bunch of ideas dreamed up by other people, but which most people do not seem to be able to put together in order to make a coherent bigger picture. And I suspect am a very long way from the only person who has managed to put most of those pieces together, but I might just be the first person foolish enough to attempt to write a book about it. I just happen to be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to make the attempt even though it will probably be a total failure commercially. I have spent much of the last 20 years thinking about it and have already started writing it on several occasions only to run into show-stopping problems. It is a personal challenge more than anything else -- do I actually have a coherent overall position, or do I just have a bunch of ideas that don't quite properly fit together? The only way to find out is to actually write the book and see whether anybody actually gets to the end and understands what they have read.

[johnny]

In a world of infinitely variable "truths" and all of them irrefutable...no...there isn't any truth. There is just believe whatever you want and because you believe it, it must be true.

That, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with western civilisation. The book I am writing is an attempt to explain how we ended up in this mess, and that there is, in fact, a way out of it. A paradigm shift is required in science. Until this happens, the wider cultural change will remain blocked.

Philosophy provides no way out of any physical reality than other self-referencing belief systems...same as the Mormons and the FSM. And philosophy isn't a science, and while a philosopher can claim that science needs to solve the problem, a philosopher isn't the one you ask to SOLVE the problem. Because their answer is anything they want it to be. "Sure, just douse that gunpowder there with some gasoline and light a match, my philosophical answer says that fire isn't real."

"A paradigm shift is required in science." Good thing scientists are doing research on getting fusion up and running then. There is a paradigm shift indeed. Problem solved.

[UndercoverElephant]

Philosophy provides no way out of any physical reality than other self-referencing belief systems...same as the Mormons and the FSM. And philosophy isn't a science, and while a philosopher can claim that science needs to solve the problem, a philosopher isn't the one you ask to SOLVE the problem. Because their answer is anything they want it to be. "Sure, just douse that gunpowder there with some gasoline and light a match, my philosophical answer says that fire isn't real."

"A paradigm shift is required in science." Good thing scientists are doing research on getting fusion up and running then. There is a paradigm shift indeed. Problem solved.

No point in me trying to answer this here. As I have repeatedly said, I cannot explain this to you in less than 200,000 words. You think you understand reality and epistemology, but you don't. I am fully aware of the problems, and that many people think like you do. When I have finished the book, you are welcome to read it.

[mr brightside]

The difference being that the FSM isn't real, but collapse is. The world as we know it is both unsustainable and unreformable. It is therefore going to come to an involuntary end. I begin the book by assuming the reader is sympathetic to this point of view. Any person who is not sympathetic to it is not the target audience. From the point of view of the book, they are irrelevant.

I'd love it if you didn't write the book that way, you are narrowing your target audience massively there. If you can write it in a way that seeks to undermine the assumptions of continuous growth people without telling them they are 'wrong' and you are 'right' you will get far more people thinking outside the box. Most people think western civilisation is the last great civilisation not because they are thick, but because they haven't yet considered collapse. Considering collapse is the first step to accepting it, apart from you lot on here I don't know anyone who realistically considers it.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you can write it in a way that seeks to undermine the assumptions of continuous growth people without telling them they are 'wrong' and you are 'right' you will get far more people thinking outside the box.

I don't have anything to say that is likely to change their minds. Accepting that the world as we know it is not going to survive is something that a mere book is likely to convince anybody about, because it means giving up on hopes and dreams. They are a hostile audience and I have no strategy to win them over. People who have already got to that stage, for whatever reason, are in rather a different situation -- they tend to lack hope. Some are convinced humans are going extinct, or we're going back to the stone age. The others are usually some mixture of depressed, angry and confused, they're often looking for people to blame, some of them have also got very evangelical about unrealistic outcomes such as mass veganism or various brands of anarchism. There is also inevitably quite a lot of other people who know something is wrong and it won't take much for them to accept collapse. For all these people I think I do have something to say, and in most cases it is something they aren't expecting to hear.