Green Energy Philosophers
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Green Energy Philosophers
My idea starts with communities, where primarily people with backgrounds in conservation, ecology, climate change, etc, should post their thoughts in length, including submitting paper proposals, about any philosophical subject on a community forum. It would, as the title suggests, be called: Green Energy philosophers.
My reasoning for this is as follows:
Humanity can save the environment, but what comes next after that stage? We are constantly seeking to augment and improve our reality beyond what nature has to offer, so saving the environment, though a noble goal, is not enough without further philosophy and ideas, so that we can keep on and continue to return to an environment that is plausible given the scope of our ambitions. It is not just the environment end-of, it is everything that supports us.
What are your thoughts on gathering philosophical insights from people who are invested in the field of climate change and etc.
If Bill Gates is right, then such a startup or community would fail, because most are likely to fail. What are the reasons for this?
Thank you for your time.
All the best.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
On the other hand in the face of the larger causes of global warming, such as coal power and petroleum-powered vehicles, it really doesn't make any difference. At the current rate, the arctic sea ice is expected to be entirely gone in 2035. The SMithsonian reported this three years ago, and all studies since have concurred with the prediction. The scale of the necessary change would entail either closing all coal powered plants or taking all petroleum vehicles off the road in eight years, are totally impossible in a democratic society which is not educated enough to believe scientific analysis properly. The rate and result of change are rather undeniable. But what has instead happened is that Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord. China and other nations now don't trust the USA to keep whatever commitments it does make now. Hence they are not taking the drastic steps either, because they rightly believe the USA will probable exploit the economic sacrifices they would have to make.
With Biden's current popularity rating it seems highly unlikely he will win another election, whereas to make the required changes in time before the Arctic Sea ice is gone, there would have to be a supermajority, that is, both the house and senate, and the President, would have to be democrats. That would enable the 2/3 majority to pass a constitutional amendment saying the policy won't be changed by future administrations, and that's the only actual way to concur with the demands of China and other nations to ensure the USA does not back out of the Paris Accord again.
When the Arctic Sea ice is gone, the homeostatic mechanism controlling seasons in the Northern Hemisphere will be lost, and the world's ocean currents will change so much there will be climate catastrophe to a scale not known since the last extinction event. Sadly as this is a philosophical forum I have to shamefacedly state the only solution to preventing the death of billions is now a Marxist revolution, and given the GOP's resistance to unquestionable fact even that is likely to fail.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
One of the biggest problems which is not being considered enough in debates is that petroleum sources are not going to last indefinitely. This calls for thinking about energy resources and it may require a shift in the way resources have been used. The focus sometimes appears to be on climate change but it may be that this is simply the most obvious problem but the issues of ecology may be deeper and wider. It may also be about looking at the values, especially economic ethics, as the emphasis on economic growth, as argued by E F Schumacher in, 'Small is Beautiful'.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
Thats poetic fancy in the face of what has now become inevitable doom. As I say, other nations causing the most problems have made clear their position on the USA's vacillation, and the only way to resolve it is via a constitutional amendment.
What has happened is that the time for calling for change before some 'tipping point' has passed. The tipping point has come and gone during COVID. Now instead of saying 'we can start to change now and make bigger changes later,' the new political position is :things as they are its become too late for us to do anything significant anyway so why bother." There are some nations in Europe proceeding with more idealistic hopes but given the scale of the problem, they really are not going to save the world from climactic catastrophe. Beyond any possibility of revolution changing the mindset in the USA, it now appears there will have to be a world war after the chaos becomes so severe that the only thing left to do is hate those at fault. Which will include the USA at the top of the list.
- JackDaydream
- Posts: 3220
- Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
I think that you are right about that earlier ideas being 'poetic fancy'. The situation appears so critical and it may be that the situation appears so dire that many try to avoid thinking about it at all.
-
- Posts: 433
- Joined: March 5th, 2018, 4:27 am
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
Well it's good to take personal responsibility, I have to admire that. I do wish there was some way to make a public statement that a constitutional amendment is required, but the people who are ignoring the need the most are the politicians who continue on their privately motivated vendettas to incriminate the opposing party without any attempt whatsoever to recognize the only solution now available.JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2022, 5:53 pm @ernestm
I think that you are right about that earlier ideas being 'poetic fancy'. The situation appears so critical and it may be that the situation appears so dire that many try to avoid thinking about it at all.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
If topics can be created that generate enough discussion, beyond the obvious solutions, then that means it can be an opening to greater philosophical debate, and eventually the topics created sometimes may not even resemble the original question, and go off into other areas such as metaphysics, digital identities etc.
One project that organisations are looking into, is the digital twins project, which is itself an opening to other projects.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
Wherever you look, there is always conflicting research I assume.
The greatest method towards a sustainable future, might be technology. As a last ditch resort, if what enerstm says is true.
Could philosophical discussion and thinking improve our scientific methods towards speeding up simulations and technological progress?
If we are fortunate, and the problems turn out to be not as dramatic as some predictions suggest, then we will have time to speed up our innovative processes.
Sorry for the double post, it's late here.
By the way, the digital twins project is an effort to create a twin of earth for simulation purposes.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
That looks like a good and accurate summary, sadly.JackDaydream wrote: ↑January 22nd, 2022, 5:53 pm The situation appears so critical and it may be that the situation appears so dire that many try to avoid thinking about it at all.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
What we need, is to increase the morale of the population, so that people are more likely to give money towards charitable causes.
It is like the military, because high troop morale often increases the ability and success of the force.
Obviously this isn't the military, but if community discussion groups can be created to spread higher morale towards important issues, possibly expressed by means of philosophy as well, then money can be donated based on morale and involvement.
The money would go towards the proposal to governments worldwide, that certain hypothetical funds would eventually need to be made a consideration.
Such as, a great piece of space rock hurtling into Earth. How much money would need to be put aside to deal with this eventuality?
And then obviously there is climate change. How much? 500 Billion dollars? The plan of physicist Steve Desch suggests using millions of wind powered water pumps to regenerate the ice in the Arctic.
Naturally, there are sceptics such as Paul Homewood, who calls Steve Desch a mad scientist.
Paul Homewood, in his article: Mad Scientist wants to spend 400bn to refreeze the Arctic, makes the claim that the Arctic goes through warming cycles, and that this is why the temperature anomalies of the 1940's in the Arctic occurred - - because it was going through a warming cycle.
Without digging deeper, I cannot figure out whether his statement is true. Maybe this requires help from others.
One thing that I notice in his article, is that he says two things: 1. That it is a waste of taxpayers money, and 2. That it might end up generating too much additional ice in the Arctic.
If enough money could be raised for a 'political prototype' - - that is, a prototype that is politicised, then it might encourage a greater solution to be accepted and resolutely used.
The worry is that while we are leaning towards a scientific consensus about climate change, there may be many hidden variables.
Therefore, we need risk assessments that make clear the fact that you can't know every variable.
Prototypes can be created with money raised from active communities that raise morale and output through discussions, engagement, and philosophical topics.
My background, or at least my skill, is the entertainment industry and philosophical issues relating to existential factors.
It's not really surprising, that since I can relate to Bill Gates and his role with Xbox and leisure/entertainment, I would make the proposals that I have in this topic.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: March 18th, 2020, 4:10 pm
Re: Green Energy Philosophers
Besides, isn't it difficult to spread love? We live in an age where people can be affected by a sense of tragedy, and this goes back to Greek Tragedy. It is something that deeply affects our sense of right and wrong.
Morals and conscience are important. If we see something going tragically wrong, then we should at least try and respond.
Of course, this isn't about creating a viral sensation/solution or trend, it is about community engagement, hopefully encouraging a variety of perspectives.
I don't think that a sudden wave of consciousness will sweep through the human race. Perhaps what we rely on is rational engagement.
As well as that, there is a case to be made for zero sum engagement. In the modern world, there are many non- zero sum factors to take into consideration.
If human beings could accept that sometimes a zero-sum approach to responsibility and decision making is necessary, then we might make some progress.
For example, the summer ice caps melting. Is that Zero-sum or non zero sum?
Sooner or later we must simply perform a risk assessment, consider many variables, and make a decision.
Apologies for over complicating.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023