Climate Change (CC): How may you help him?

[gad-fly]

Given your exclusion of morality I can't see why I should care. Those - as you say - "may accuse" me certainly do so based on moral assumptions which don't apply because you excluded morality.
Why shouldn't it be enough in a democractic system to consider such issues when it comes to elections and then leave it to the elected representatives?

The topic is on How you may help Mr. Climate, not on whether it is right or wrong to help. It is appropriate to sideline such distraction, which can be under another topic to be brought up later when necessary.

It is like the discussion on eating shark fin soup. You are more concerned about shark killing swimmers and eating salmon? Fine, but sorry, it is not on the agenda. Focus must be on the survival of the shark here.

You don't want to help Mr. Climate, or you do not believe he deserves your help? Fine. Not a moral issue here.

[stevie]

Given your exclusion of morality I can't see why I should care. Those - as you say - "may accuse" me certainly do so based on moral assumptions which don't apply because you excluded morality.
Why shouldn't it be enough in a democractic system to consider such issues when it comes to elections and then leave it to the elected representatives?

The topic is on How you may help Mr. Climate, not on whether it is right or wrong to help.

What I've expressed is that the question "how ..?" does not apply to me. I*ve not been talking about "right" or "wrong". But maybe you have addressed your question not to a general "you" but to a particualr "you"?

[Belindi]

Hi everyone!

Some time ago I studied some ecology-oriented study programme, so this topic is quite close to me. Hovewer, I started to look at this problem in a little bit philosophical manner, and few thoughts already come to my mind. For example think about this:

Our nowaday society is (at this moment in time) the result of billions years of life evolution. Humans showed up just recently, so they definitely have no impact on the whole evolution. If we are part of evolution, it does mean that everything what humankind did was part of it. And if we can consider this evolution as natural part of universe, so we can consider a human deeds as natural part of universe. So we can say - what happened couldn't have happened any other way.

Men made man-made climate change. Man- made climate change was caused mainly by huge factories (1850s onwards) burning coal to make iron, steel, pottery, electricity, coal gas, concrete, paper, agricultural chemicals , and the enormous amount of stuff made from the basic materials.Later oil from oil wells added to man-made climate change. We call this the industrial revolution. It had never happened before when men lived simply in the countryside using horse power and water power, and not using stuff made in huge coal- driven factories and using fuels from oil wells and huge coal mines.

[gad-fly]

Given your exclusion of morality I can't see why I should care. Those - as you say - "may accuse" me certainly do so based on moral assumptions which don't apply because you excluded morality.
Why shouldn't it be enough in a democractic system to consider such issues when it comes to elections and then leave it to the elected representatives?

The topic is on How you may help Mr. Climate, not on whether it is right or wrong to help.

What I've expressed is that the question "how ..?" does not apply to me. I*ve not been talking about "right" or "wrong". But maybe you have addressed your question not to a general "you" but to a particualr "you"?

Looks like you are not yet prepared to face the title "How you may help him?" No problem. We can debate any time you deem fit, on different aspects of CC later, and on other topics. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

[stevie]

Given your exclusion of morality I can't see why I should care. Those - as you say - "may accuse" me certainly do so based on moral assumptions which don't apply because you excluded morality.
Why shouldn't it be enough in a democractic system to consider such issues when it comes to elections and then leave it to the elected representatives?

The topic is on How you may help Mr. Climate, not on whether it is right or wrong to help.

What I've expressed is that the question "how ..?" does not apply to me. I*ve not been talking about "right" or "wrong". But maybe you have addressed your question not to a general "you" but to a particualr "you"?

Looks like you are not yet prepared to face the title "How you may help him?"

Yes. Because even though there might be a conceptual issue that conceptual issue isn't a person I might refer to as "him".

[figliar0]

Hi everyone!

Some time ago I studied some ecology-oriented study programme, so this topic is quite close to me. Hovewer, I started to look at this problem in a little bit philosophical manner, and few thoughts already come to my mind. For example think about this:

Our nowaday society is (at this moment in time) the result of billions years of life evolution. Humans showed up just recently, so they definitely have no impact on the whole evolution. If we are part of evolution, it does mean that everything what humankind did was part of it. And if we can consider this evolution as natural part of universe, so we can consider a human deeds as natural part of universe. So we can say - what happened couldn't have happened any other way.

Men made man-made climate change. Man- made climate change was caused mainly by huge factories (1850s onwards) burning coal to make iron, steel, pottery, electricity, coal gas, concrete, paper, agricultural chemicals , and the enormous amount of stuff made from the basic materials.Later oil from oil wells added to man-made climate change. We call this the industrial revolution. It had never happened before when men lived simply in the countryside using horse power and water power, and not using stuff made in huge coal- driven factories and using fuels from oil wells and huge coal mines.

I don't want to disagree that industrial revolution is (or may be) the reason of climate changes, sorry I did express my thoughts in hard to understand manner. I just want to say that industrial revolution (and thus climate changes) is (or may be) a natural result of whole evolution. Some time ago our ancestors started to use their brains a little bit more, started to making tools and live in bigger groups, they started to agriculture etc etc. And industrial revolution is just another continuation of this process, which started... when? What was the primary cause that resulted through long sequence of events to industrial revolution? What was that point when humankind stood on the crossroad and could change the destiny of whole planet? What should happened in another way? And finally - was humankind capable to do such a decision back then long ago?

When people talk about climate changes and ecology in general, their often used to see humankind as something out of nature, that humankind do not match natural evolution. They used to see humankind as unnatural or even evil. Why is that? When we left the ways of right and fall down to evil? Why should be humankind considered as something that do not match the rest of universe?

This may looks like little off-topic. But I think that if we want to ask how exactly can we help to planet, first we have to answer the question if planet needs our help at all and what should the direction of our help be.

[stevie]

Funnily speaking of the climate as a person that would need help does not even match the situation metaphorically. Why? Because it isn't the climate that needs help because the climate certainly will not suffer and certainly will survive humankind.