Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

The only response that seems fitting here is to merely re-post my quote from David Deutsch:

“It is inevitable that we face problems, but no particular problem is inevitable. We survive, and thrive, by solving each problem as it comes up. And, since the human ability to transform nature is limited only by the laws of physics, none of the endless stream of problems will ever constitute an impassable barrier. So a complementary and equally important truth about people and the physical world is that problems are soluble. By ‘soluble’ I mean that the right knowledge would solve them. It is not, of course, that we can possess knowledge just by wishing for it; but it is in principle accessible to us.”

Interesting. The thing that first strikes me, is that it's not knowledge we need, it's foresight, and the ability to use it. It's that we must realise that our acts have consequences, and that it does no good to solve a problem by making it worse, out of ignorance (or foolishness?). Just as we hailed the advent of petrol, so that we could avoid drowning in ...

[Fried Egg]

The only response that seems fitting here is to merely re-post my quote from David Deutsch:

“It is inevitable that we face problems, but no particular problem is inevitable. We survive, and thrive, by solving each problem as it comes up. And, since the human ability to transform nature is limited only by the laws of physics, none of the endless stream of problems will ever constitute an impassable barrier. So a complementary and equally important truth about people and the physical world is that problems are soluble. By ‘soluble’ I mean that the right knowledge would solve them. It is not, of course, that we can possess knowledge just by wishing for it; but it is in principle accessible to us.”

Interesting. The thing that first strikes me, is that it's not knowledge we need, it's foresight, and the ability to use it. It's that we must realise that our acts have consequences, and that it does no good to solve a problem by making it worse, out of ignorance (or foolishness?). Just as we hailed the advent of petrol, so that we could avoid drowning in ...

Well, yes, we need foresight but from where will that come if not from knowledge?

Of course it's true that, in solving one problem, we may unleash another. But problems are inevitable whatever we do. Even if we somehow shrunk the population to the level you would like, that would pose it's own set of problems.

There are no problems that are intrinsically unsolvable. It may seem that way when we don't know what the solution is but only until we solve it. Some solutions are better than others, true. And we will never be liberated from problems. We can only keep trying to find solutions.

[Sy Borg]

There are no problems that are intrinsically unsolvable. It may seem that way when we don't know what the solution is but only until we solve it. Some solutions are better than others, true. And we will never be liberated from problems. We can only keep trying to find solutions.

Nope, one problem is impossible - how to maintain the lifestyles of 8 billion people without breaking own more ecosystems and causing more extinctions. All of our success comes at the expense of nature.

As an animal lover, this used to upset me greatly. However, I've had to square myself with the idea that most of the beautiful large creatures of Earth are rapidly going away, and their destruction in the wild is certain. Trouble is, the world always changes, and sometimes it changes drastically. Consider the change from the pre-Cambrian to the Cambrian. Ecosystems everywhere changed utterly with the emergence of large new species.

Now, nature as we know it is being replaced by humans and tech, which is forming whole new eco/techno systems.

Given the mind-boggling cruelty of nature - with a fair proportion of denizens finding their end being eaten alive - the situation is not all negative.

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, yes, we need foresight but from where will that come if not from knowledge?

More to the point, where does the "knowledge" come from? Take GM foods. If we did the hard and time-consuming (i.e. expensive) work, using sandboxes and their equivalents (fume-cupboards, etc), before we released new genes into the *global* environment, then we might gain useful knowledge without posing a significant risk to the world. Or we could do what we did with nuclear fission bombs, and just blow them up anyway. Radioactivity? Wassat, then?

We need more caution, and less cost-reduced rushes to the marketplace before we know what we're selling there.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are no problems that are intrinsically unsolvable. It may seem that way when we don't know what the solution is but only until we solve it. Some solutions are better than others, true. And we will never be liberated from problems. We can only keep trying to find solutions.

Nope, one problem is impossible - how to maintain the lifestyles of 8 billion people without breaking own more ecosystems and causing more extinctions.

You're 100% right there. Of course. I only observe that it isn't a "problem" at all. It's fairy-story wishful thinking. <muse>I wish for an endless supply of gold..."</muse> It's just greed, in other words. But this takes nothing from what you say; you are correct.

[LuckyR]

There are no problems that are intrinsically unsolvable. It may seem that way when we don't know what the solution is but only until we solve it. Some solutions are better than others, true. And we will never be liberated from problems. We can only keep trying to find solutions.

Nope, one problem is impossible - how to maintain the lifestyles of 8 billion people without breaking own more ecosystems and causing more extinctions. All of our success comes at the expense of nature.

As an animal lover, this used to upset me greatly. However, I've had to square myself with the idea that most of the beautiful large creatures of Earth are rapidly going away, and their destruction in the wild is certain. Trouble is, the world always changes, and sometimes it changes drastically. Consider the change from the pre-Cambrian to the Cambrian. Ecosystems everywhere changed utterly with the emergence of large new species.

Now, nature as we know it is being replaced by humans and tech, which is forming whole new eco/techno systems.

Given the mind-boggling cruelty of nature - with a fair proportion of denizens finding their end being eaten alive - the situation is not all negative.

You're right, 8+ billion people can't not negatively impact ecosystems. But as it happens, the human population will only be at the 8+ level briefly before it plummets, ultimately to below 1 billion.

[Sy Borg]

There are no problems that are intrinsically unsolvable. It may seem that way when we don't know what the solution is but only until we solve it. Some solutions are better than others, true. And we will never be liberated from problems. We can only keep trying to find solutions.

Nope, one problem is impossible - how to maintain the lifestyles of 8 billion people without breaking own more ecosystems and causing more extinctions. All of our success comes at the expense of nature.

As an animal lover, this used to upset me greatly. However, I've had to square myself with the idea that most of the beautiful large creatures of Earth are rapidly going away, and their destruction in the wild is certain. Trouble is, the world always changes, and sometimes it changes drastically. Consider the change from the pre-Cambrian to the Cambrian. Ecosystems everywhere changed utterly with the emergence of large new species.

Now, nature as we know it is being replaced by humans and tech, which is forming whole new eco/techno systems.

Given the mind-boggling cruelty of nature - with a fair proportion of denizens finding their end being eaten alive - the situation is not all negative.

You're right, 8+ billion people can't not negatively impact ecosystems. But as it happens, the human population will only be at the 8+ level briefly before it plummets, ultimately to below 1 billion.

Thing is, leading up to 8 billion has exhausted much of the "low hanging fruit" resources, decimated numerous critical ecosystems, and used up much of the arable land.

Given that, at some stage, humanity will be gone, it's a rather safe bet to say that one day we'll be less than one billion.