Who’s to Blame for Global Warming? UR

[BridgeTheGap]

Philosophers. Sort of.

Why? Because they haven’t equipped us with the kind of thinking that would help us wrap our minds around the problem and devise a way to stop it. That is to say, they haven't taught us how to change the way we live in the world.

To do that, we’d need a wholly different kind of academic inquiry, writes Nicholas Maxwell, author of the recently revised From Knowledge to Wisdom, in the latest issue of Philosophy Now (subscription required):

Global warming is the outcome of the way we live, and in order to arrest it we need to change the way we live... Having a kind of academic inquiry that gave intellectual priority to articulating, and working out how to tackle, problems of living, would have helped enormously with alerting the public to the problem of global warming, and to what needs to be done in response to it.

But we have not had, and still do not have, academic inquiry of this type—devoted to helping humanity learn how to tackle its problems in increasingly rationally cooperative ways. Instead we have science—this long tradition of inquiry devoted to improving knowledge and technological know-how.

More: http://tinyurl.com/2mdbda

[phantom power]

1. So he wants "academic inquiry" that isn't based on science?

Sounds like he is mistaking the methodology for the domain.

[tinrobot]

2. It's called wisdom.

Science tells us smoking causes cancer. Wise people can see further ahead to the cancer and don't smoke (or stop smoking.) Those who aren't very wise continue to smoke despite the scientific data.

Science is telling us all we need to know about climate. Now it's time for us to gain wisdom and act on that information. Figuring out how to change the mindset of 6 billion people is a very important area of academic inquiry.

If we don't pursue this area of inquiry, we're going to be the patient who stops smoking only after the first lung is removed.

[phantom power]

3. I think he's wishing for something like Asimov's psychohistory, but he doesn't know it.

He wants to develop a working knowledge about social engineering techniques to reorganize how we all live. He seems to think we can't apply "science" to that problem, because to him "science" is physics, chemistry or biology.

But of course, science is a methodology, and you can apply it to any kind of problem, as long as you have a systematic way of evaluating theories against reality.

My own suspicion is that we can apply science to the problem, but that when we do we will discover that there are deep limits to what can be done. Kind of like the discovery of the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, there are people who are studying these problems, and the early results suggest that you will always have periodic cascading failures in any system as complicated as an ecology, or human economy.

Those failures will always adhere to a power-law distribution. What we might do, is alter the scale of the power law distribution. Make very large failures less frequent. What we probably can't do is eliminate them. Eventually, that will be encoded as a law of complex system behavior, and future social scientists (if we have a future) will look back on us in much the same way we look back on scientists and engineers prior to the laws of thermodynamics.

John Holland hopes that we can also find ways to identify "lever points" in complex systems. If we can, that would enable a useful form of social engineering. Probably as close as we will ever get to a real-world psychohistory. Unlike Asimov's version, a real-world theory will be more probabilistic in nature. Manipulating any "lever point" will carry uncertainty about the consequences, but it may still be useful to play the odds.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Some don't stop after the first lung

Addiction is a terrible thing. Some can overcome it through wisdom and sheer will power. Others cannot.

An old dear (and wise) friend finally stopped smoking. She now sucks on nicotine lozenges. (She's been doing it for years now.)


To borrow a phrase from our president, we're "addicted to oil."

It may take more than wisdom to get us out of this predicament.

[Javaman]

4. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

I have written about this in the past. Our society, either philosophically, socially or technologically, is set up to not only not to think or plan ahead but to exhibit a from a reactionary response instead of thinking it through.

If some sort of cosmic convergence occurred and quite suddenly, the various wise guys that be were to become the new rock stars, then perhaps people may listen, but until the general population is forced to do something, they won't do it.

The very willful dumbing down of society and the gross lack of critical thinking skills that are now absent from the general consciousness is what is killing us.

The time it would take to change over society in a revolutionary manner, which is what is required to actually tackle climate change, would take far to long for it to have any effect upon the problem.

So I go back to my second paragraph, the days of rational discussions and asking people to "do their part" have long since passed. The next step, which no one has the guts to initiate, is to force the general public into action.

But that kind of power and influence that is desperately required by one or more of our "elected" officials is sadly lacking.

The change to a wisdom based society is a novel concept but wisdom without common sense is nothing more than ego without rationality.

[The2ndWheel]

5. Who are you, Enviro Kristol?

"The time it would take to change over society in a revolutionary manner, which is what is required to actually tackle climate change, would take far to long for it to have any effect upon the problem."

"The process, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor"

The sad thing is that both you and Bill Kristol are right, depending on what the goal is.

It's just weird how those two sentences sound very similar.

"The very willful dumbing down of society and the gross lack of critical thinking skills that are now absent from the general consciousness is what is killing us."

But...

"The next step, which no one has the guts to initiate, is to force the general public into action."

How would that help with the dumbing down and lack of critical thinking? If you force the general public to do X, then you're not really allowing those people that make up the general public to think for themselves, which is how we got into this mess. We've forced more and more people to live the same way, whether by physical force, or economic incentives, or legislation, etc.

[Javaman]

6. Fine, they drive off the cliff at full speed.

so comparing me to an asshole is what you call a logical response? And comparing what we have done to our selves to PNACs distorted vision of a new world order a fair comparison? Please. Get your philosophies straight.

People don't change until forced to, history proves that. Our society proves that. If I was wrong all SUV drivers would be dumping their vehicles and getting on the bus.

If you can see a practical philosophical change that will be applicable to our current situation to institute a revolutionary change of thought over night, I would love to hear it.

Until then stop spouting bizarre comparisons with the neo-cons strange mission to take over the world and trying to find a way to change peoples thought process enough to guild us out of climate change.

Apples and Oranges.

You will now be blocked due to your odd and strange references and bringing up the evil kristol and comparing me to him.

[cloudythescribbler]

8. Actually, looking to "deep ecology" philosophy crap is more part of the problem ...

This kind of entertainment of the intellectual mind often distracts the communities (eg academia) where concern for issues like Global Warming tends to be highest. Think like a mountain? What will that accomplish -- and how do you know when and if you're doing it?

Meanwhile, you don't even see much interest in the CONCRETE but both "uncool" and power-disfavored issues like the fact that w/in the past month the famous climatologist Jim Hansen called for NET NEGATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS -- as we have ALREADY PASSED the tipping point for the melting of the arctic sea ice in summer, with GRAVE implications. Who knows what the tipping point is for the release of massive amounts of methane from thawing arctic tundra?

On the issue of hydrogen, I bring up the fact that there has been INEXPENSIVELY APPLIED OFF THE SHELF TECHNOLOGY to shift ordinary gasoline engine cars over to running on metallic hydride (MgH2) canisters (magnesium hydride is a NONexplosive salt), with the main problem (recently there's been a major technological breakthrough) being able to produce enough hydrogen cheaply (as the MgH2 canisters can be recycled for being 'rehydrized'). Now that can be done with a system that runs on solar and other renewable forms of energy.

What kind of responses do I get -- sneering dismissals as 'technological suppression conspiracy theory' of an article from THE NATION back on Oct 4 1980 (yes, that's MORE THAT 1/4 century ago) called "Somebody Doesn't Like Hy-Fuel" about someone who was changing cars over and encountered a lot of suppression.

So there's all this fashionable 'philosophical' garbage and equally fashionable dismissal of the concrete realities, let alone doing anything about them, as everyone is too busy "serving" and angling for kudos, too concerned about image preening and getting 'golden parachutes' as the world goes into crisis, than actually taking REAL and UNcelebrated risks to address the REAL and CONCRETE issues, especially underground.

It is that mentality which, second only to the machinery of railroading eco-cide (credit for repression but not to protect the ozone layer from CFC's or the planet from global warming), is the pivotal CAUSE of the demise of our ecosystem, and more.

[BeFree]

9. Not really

The reason is: We can't afford it. It would cost too much and someone (big, big companies) would suffer. It would hurt our freedoms.

The rest is pretty much just mumbo-jumbo.


&&&&&&&&&&

What we are doing, altogether, is like setting off a volcano a day, what with all our smokestacks and tailpipes.

[Ghost Dog]

10. "Already passed climate-change tipping point..."

Most likely so, it appears. So responses will be increasingly concerned with coping with the consequences.

Perhaps in this way we will reach the perhaps necessary 'catharsis' or 'Pearl Harbor moment' mentioned above.

As regards 'social engineering', the TV, aka 'idiot box' has surely proven to be the most powerful tool yet invented for this. It has to date been employed (above all in the US) to dumb-down societies in order to create acquiescent, indeed fully-addicted 'consumers'. This tool could be employed to different ends, such as the cultivation of wisdom that is undoubtedly required - either through democratic consensus or under authoritarian regimes.

Education, however, of the best possible quality for all, young and old and especially for the young, has to be, as it always has been, key.

Greed, I would suggest, over and above mere selfishness, is the essential problem here. Economic systems are now largely based upon it. It is interesting to observe that all the world's 'revolutionary' religious systems (and I'm not thinking only of Buddhism or other 'quietist' religions) have always had a lot to say in this area.

Religions, of course, are all about social engineering and political control of the masses, are they not?

I have been attempting to piece together information and ideas in this area for some time now, concentrating on the so-called science of economics most recently, and am grateful to see some discussion of it here. I don't feel very optimistic, but neither am I a complete 'catastrophist'. But some 'force', I do agree, will come to be applied - whether natural or of human confection we shall see...

(This, just off the top of my head right now).

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. As a long-time fan of hydrogen...

Metal hydride storage is not new. It's been around for 30-40 years.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/metal_hydrides.html

There's really no particular need to swap out canisters either (although that can be done.)

Check out segment #1:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1506/video/watchonline.htm


However, please do not oversell the "major technological breakthrough." I don't think it represents what you seem to think it is.

[kestrel91316]

12. We don't need a new philosophy. We just all need to stop living

like complete wastrels.