Related Posts:


  • Ruan

    I understand your dmiemla. You are wrestling with your humanitarian self. Let me explain something to you, something I think will point toward the solution.Humanitarian beliefs are based upon half-truthed notions that we can have our cake and eat it too. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Our secular humanist instincts are forth tier moral concerns, and less compelling than first, second or third tier moral issues.Prioitization of morality judgment calls:First tier Sustenance and existence for the future. Avoidance of self-destruction, closing the door to all humanity in the future..Second tier Quality of life for the future. Pollution, over population, limiting dangerous knowledge sets.Third tier (built upon the second tier) quality of life as it relates to diversity (species diversity cannot be replaced), and a smaller human footprint.Fourth tier (built upon third tier) quality of life based upon the sort of human existence we by our experience find amenable and we would like to bequeath to the future. (This is the level at which we are concerned about the die off you predict.) The concern is fourth in line.Also on fourth tier the sort of society we would wish to pass on to the future, i.e., democracy? not such a short lifetime? not so much murder and mayhem?Now, note each of these four tiers, they all emphasize the impact on the future.How can that be?Look. We have nothing to complain about. We are at the party. Stop complaining. Just don’t act like this is your place and you can do with it anything you want. We are guests of the future that will replace us. Respect the host of this marvelous party. That is your primary moral duty..The future is what is morally important.Had our past been civilized, it would have realized this and we would be living with the benefit of their moral emphasis.Instead we are living with the legacy of the empricists and the humanists, each of whom sought to make the world better for the present in the mistaken belief such an emphasis would confer upon the future a better present to follow.This was an aberration.Now, as for your dire-need precipitous graph and article you link to.I and you (if you think about it) both know, we’re asking to have our cake and eat it too, if we think there isn’t going to be a massive die off. It can be managed to some degree, but there is no way around it. Given our current course, without a massive die off, it will be 60 years due to Malthusean reality before the world’s population even has a chance at leveling off. So, get used to it, because we’re seeing the die off all around us already occurring. We’re up to our neck in it already.If you read Twain’s Innocents Abroad circa 1870, you will find, the die off was occurring then too in the old world.So, I am not playing God when I say, let it happen to reduce the severity of what will come to the future. In other words, forget the golden rule and do for the future as you would have had the past do for us in the present.Anything short of this approach is only going to exacerbate the problem to the extent that what you deem impossible to tolerate will seem mild by what you will obligate the future to undergo due to an obvious meddling incompetence we see everywhere in our world today.And even were you able to courageously and heroically postpone the calamity, it is still going to end up catching up and surpassing what you saved in suffering by leaps and bounds.That’s the moral choice. And viewed in the perspective of reality, the only moral choice is obvious. Give the benefit of your wisdom to the future, not toward attempting to alleviate the problems of the present at the expense of the future.Preach the end of science, not again the false salvation science has never been able to deliver.So, the solution then is to expose the liars and the frauds, to negate and stigmatize the liars that perpetuate the dangerous myth of science’s right to rule, or even to exist and continue to steal from the future with an ever decreasing return on the value stolen.One can accuse in a humanist way, I am immoral not to try. But it is beyond trying and has been for a long time, ever since it required yet more gambles where the wager is the future. These gambles are immoral because the constant losses are cumulatively stealing from the future.We simply are not competent to easily improve the world, and we never could be competent.enough to improve life, for life is the ultimate truth and the ultimate good wrapped up in a single whole.Science is a gambler who is flat busted.So, consider:Well more than half those being born today will live their short lives in conditions you or I would deem entirely intolerable. And the percentage of those living in intolerable conditions increases every day.Is it moral to offer these poor wretched beings the false hope of a scientific messiah who will solve all their problems that were in fact caused by science?NO! We are not Gods. We are human beings. We have no such prescience that can improve the world or life except by preventing other humans from making the same mistakes we can observe have brought us to this intolerable precipice.Don Robertson, The American Philosopher