Deaths from climate change

[ruffrecords]

That's weather, not climate...

I know that. You know that. Pity the net zero alarmists don't and these days they seem to be the ones driving the narrative.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Ó Draighnáin]

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.

 

[cyrano]

I know that. You know that. Pity the net zero alarmists don't and these days they seem to be the ones driving the narrative.

Well, at least they're not as nauseating as the "Stop oil now!" crowd. They seem to have given up. Maybe they realised they weren't helping the cause by enraging many.

 

[ruffrecords]

"Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles" Dostoievski

Cheers

Ian

 

[jabe]

"Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles" Dostoievski

Did Fyodor Dostoevsky Say This About Tolerance?

What could illustrate the state of the internet in 2022 better than a quote falsely attributed to Fyodor Dostoevsky to make it seem as though the 19th-century Russian literary giant had predicted cancel culture?

 

[JohnRoberts]

Did Fyodor Dostoevsky Say This About Tolerance?

The snopes in this one is strong...

A man who lies to himself, and believes his own lies becomes unable to recognize truth, either in himself or in anyone else, and he ends up losing respect for himself and for others. ,etc.
===
“Pain and suffering are always inevitable for a large intelligence and a deep heart. The really great men must, I think, have great sadness on earth.”
===
“To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's.”
===
It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.
===
“Nothing in this world is harder than speaking the truth, nothing easier than flattery.”
====
“Right or wrong, it's very pleasant to break something from time to time.”
===
“Man is sometimes extraordinarily, passionately, in love with suffering...”
===
“I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness.”
===
“Don’t let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them.”

Kind of dark... a couple of those quotes were from "crime and punishment". I read that book several decades ago.

JR

 

[jabe]

The snopes in this one is strong...

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes at me.  I didn't share a fake quote.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes at me.  I didn't share a fake quote.

Sorry, I went back and removed the eye roll.
===
I kind of liked the fake quote, even though Dostoevsky wouldn't have said that.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

Did Fyodor Dostoevsky Say This About Tolerance?

Interesting that their only 'proof' he did not say it was "But we found no record of the writer ever making this statement." How do we know how hard they looked??

Cheers

Ian

 

[JohnRoberts]

Interesting that their only 'proof' he did not say it was "But we found no record of the writer ever making this statement." How do we know how hard they looked??

Cheers

Ian

Are you arguing that you think he said it? I found discussion that it was inconsistent with Dostoevsky's philosophy.

I searched through lists of multiple Dostoevsky quotes trying to prove you correct, but didn't find anything similar.

I like the quote, but remain unconvinced of the attribution.

JR

 

[jabe]

Interesting that their only 'proof' he did not say it was "But we found no record of the writer ever making this statement." How do we know how hard they looked??

I mean if they were lazy about it would be easy to refute their by citing the source of the source, but there doesn't appear one. JR posted a lot of nice Dostoevsky quotes that are easily traceable.
Oh well, as Abraham Lincoln one said, "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you never know if they are genuine."

 

[ruffrecords]

I mean if they were lazy about it would be easy to refute their by citing the source of the source, but there doesn't appear one. JR posted a lot of nice Dostoevsky quotes that are easily traceable.of

I agree and I suspect the balance of probability is that the quote is fake. But if I wanted to be confident that it was not a genuine quote, I would try to contact several the people who posted it and ask them for the source. If they were unable to provide it then you could legitimately state I of the X number of people who made this quote, none of them could name a source. But they do not seem to have done that. They just said they could not find a source. If they are going to set themselves up as an arbiter of what is or is not true they need to do a much better job than them just saying they could not find a source.

Cheers

IAn

 

[cyrano]

With about 6000 occurrences on the net I wouldn't call the quote "fake". We just don't know who once said that. But does it matter?

A lot of quotes were attributed to some famous name, but came from others. It wasn't until the famous person used it, or wrote it down that people started noticing. A known mechanism, not unlike the 32 apes conundrum.

 

[ruffrecords]

With about 6000 occurrences on the net I wouldn't call the quote "fake". We just don't know who once said that. But does it matter?.

Not at all. I think it is a true reflection of our times.

Cheers

Ian

 

[jabe]

With about 6000 occurrences on the net I wouldn't call the quote "fake". We just don't know who once said that. But does it matter?

I thought it was obvious that  fake refers to the attribution.
False attribution is a way of giving unearned gravitas to a sentiment. It doesn't reflect well on those who uncritically spread it. It doesn't "matter" because this is the internet so who cares.

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is interesting how much effort we spend on attribution, and how little on what the quote actually said.

IMO it is a fair criticism of the current cancel culture, tyranny of social media.

JR

 

[13engrsapper]

"Ignorance and stupidity begets ignorance and stupidity."

-Tony

 

[jabe]

It is interesting how much effort we spend on attribution, and how little on what the quote actually said.

There used to be a moderator around these parts who said things like "just the facts" and "I can't predict the future". I wonder what that guy would think about a false quote that predicts a non-thinking future.

 

[ruffrecords]

There used to be a moderator around these parts who said things like "just the facts" and "I can't predict the future". I wonder what that guy would think about a false quote that predicts a non-thinking future.

I imagine that moderator would think "Not that far from the truth"

Cheers

Ian

 

[cyrano]

Good quotes make me think...