no, i personally agree with you 100%. i'm just trying to figure out how i would enter into a conversation like this. I don't understand what the point of talking about it on the internet is. like, the ritual of staking your values and perspectives and then engaging with other people who deviate from them in a space that doesn't determine future, action, or policy. what does it do? this is not a joke or any kind of moral judgment. i genuinely don't understand, it's alien to me. that's why i'm never really in brewery. if you're not willing to help me understand (this is a big ask), that's OK. have a nice day
Back in the mid 90s I wrote a paper on intrinsic value in nature as part of my philosophy studies. If I had a confirmation bias going into that research it was that I wanted to come to the conclusion that there was ex-anthropogenic value in nature.
Some of the discussion here reminded me of that work (basically addressing similar considerations). The intrinsic/instrumental value discussion has been ongoing for ever and a day.
I appreciate the directness in the approach that: if it is the beauty of the old growth forest that is worth preserving, then say it as such. However, the world bends (such as in politics) and often not in the way we want (or the way it should, that is, if it should).
To address your statement of "what the point is of talking about it on the internet" (considering values and perspectives), I am not sure there is an awful lot of point. The internet does allow for a clarity of expression of thought, if such is desired. Double-edged sword this, half the time it seems like people go out of their way to misunderstand so they can do what they do best, troll.
In respect of this, I note that what is revealed, for example in the brewery, is the persona of the avatar. Some people find liking/disliking or ambivalence towards someone (or something like an internet representation of a self) as unnecessarily emotive. I'm old-fashioned, the brewery, in the very least, provides me with enough information about the avatars presented to know who I would and would not give the time of day to. Extending this you can glean (about people) if you want to (and you have the cognitive capability). Of course you don't actually have to interact for any of this.
So why interact? Discussing "rituals" and "claim staking", from a historical perspective one might want enshrine ones values (such as through value-oriented internet interactions in the brewery) for the sake of one's own posterity? Or perhaps for the sake of future research, maybe your posts will generate a profile of you which will become data for future psychologists exploring human "typing"? (i.e. "cognitive types", not use of a keyboard).
Moreover, no doubt prophets will be (and probably already have been) made by the internet? Do you aspire to be a prophet?
Further, people, particularly men, want to leave a legacy, this is such a huge innate driver for many. It is genuinely possible that someone, who has the power to do so, will destroy most of the world at the same time taking comfort in the knowledge that he/she (let us face it probably he) will be the one known (at least by those who survive - delicate metric this, got to balance the catastrophe) as the one who changed everything for everyone. History will never forget this person and they will be immortal! Fame and immortality! Moses, Gilgamesh, Julius Caesar, Lao Tzu, Jesus Christ, Stalin, that dude who blew up the world...
It gets more exciting, it could be a race! Holy wars and the end of days might win. What about a curve ball? Destroying the world for the love of it? The moral saviour? Benevolent depopulation?
An interesting question comes to mind, if you could control the masses, would you? Or could you even stop yourself from doing so given you had the power to do so?
Sorry, I have digressed somewhat with tongue firmly in cheek.
What is interesting is that from now on, at least for the most part (I understand there will be exceptions), that because of the internet, people will know so much more about their ancestors than ever before: how they thought, what they did, who they were. In the past you barely got to know your grandparents and you really didn't/don't have much of an idea of how your parents actually ticked.
Will this change have an influence on how we evolve and what consitutes (and how is developed (e.g. through individuation)) our sense of self?
Oh, and as this is a climate thread, a dialogue:
"We've run out of sustainable wood sir"
"What about that old growth forest?"
"That forest is protected for its beauty sir"
"But we need wood and beauty is an abstract concept (it is in the eye of the beholder son) without any over-arching cohesive universal conceptualisation, so chop down the trees".
"Why do we need more wood sir?"
"To build homes for squirrels"
"Why do we need to build homes for squirrels sir?"
"You wouldn't understand, research has identified squirrels to be the canary in the box for the survival of this planet".
Hopefully there is enough absurdity in the above dialogue to raise a chuckle.
