If you were asked to address Climate Change from your philosophical beliefs how would you talk about
I know this could degenerate quickly, so if the mods delete this OP, fine,
But this is a philosophy forum. By that I mean everything is examined and debated, stripped down, deconstructed and restructured. Everyone comes at a question from their own perspective. They quote their favourite philosopher or the one from which they built their own take on things and they address the world from a specific philosophical perspective.
This is the situation, as I see it, on climate change:
1). Climate change is real.
2). Climate change is man made
3). Climate change is natural
4). Climate change is not real
5). We need to act on Climate Change now otherwise it’s the end for us
6). We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human
world is restructured economically and socially
7). We don’t act and nothing changes
8). We don’t act and have to deal with virtual extinction
9). We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically
and socially
10). The trigger is warmer temperatures
In an article Wayfarer posted temperatures were projected as possibly 4 degrees higher than they are by the year 3000, which would set off all sorts of cataclysmic consequences. What is, for example using laws of probability, the chance of that happening, what are the odds, and what are the odds of other factors intervening in the meantime?
Everyone knows the science, everyone refers to it. But from a philosophical point of view what is, for instance, the chance of each one of these possibilities happening if you applied laws of probability, or ideas of existential relativity, ethics, Marxism, utilitarianism, or what Baudrillard calls “an excessive proliferation of meaning”, or any numbers of philosophies I know nothing about.
It seems very unusual to me that everyone would simply look at the situation and say, “The science is in” and think no more of it.
If you were asked to address the situation from your philosophical beliefs how would you talk about it? Would you address each one of the points, shouldn’t all thing be considered, and all things considered possible? Is there really only one way to look at this? It seems to me there should be something like 100 posts all different, each one coming from a different angle, each point addressed and valued in relation to the ideas applied to it.
If the OP stays I will, of course, put up my own post.
Edit: obviously my year 3000 figure is wrong. My poor maths.
Edit: the reference was a century from now.
But this is a philosophy forum. By that I mean everything is examined and debated, stripped down, deconstructed and restructured. Everyone comes at a question from their own perspective. They quote their favourite philosopher or the one from which they built their own take on things and they address the world from a specific philosophical perspective.
This is the situation, as I see it, on climate change:
1). Climate change is real.
2). Climate change is man made
3). Climate change is natural
4). Climate change is not real
5). We need to act on Climate Change now otherwise it’s the end for us
6). We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human
world is restructured economically and socially
7). We don’t act and nothing changes
8). We don’t act and have to deal with virtual extinction
9). We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically
and socially
10). The trigger is warmer temperatures
In an article Wayfarer posted temperatures were projected as possibly 4 degrees higher than they are by the year 3000, which would set off all sorts of cataclysmic consequences. What is, for example using laws of probability, the chance of that happening, what are the odds, and what are the odds of other factors intervening in the meantime?
Everyone knows the science, everyone refers to it. But from a philosophical point of view what is, for instance, the chance of each one of these possibilities happening if you applied laws of probability, or ideas of existential relativity, ethics, Marxism, utilitarianism, or what Baudrillard calls “an excessive proliferation of meaning”, or any numbers of philosophies I know nothing about.
It seems very unusual to me that everyone would simply look at the situation and say, “The science is in” and think no more of it.
If you were asked to address the situation from your philosophical beliefs how would you talk about it? Would you address each one of the points, shouldn’t all thing be considered, and all things considered possible? Is there really only one way to look at this? It seems to me there should be something like 100 posts all different, each one coming from a different angle, each point addressed and valued in relation to the ideas applied to it.
If the OP stays I will, of course, put up my own post.
Edit: obviously my year 3000 figure is wrong. My poor maths.
Edit: the reference was a century from now.
Comments (73)
My position from a Darwinian/Gaian/social point of view, probably fatalistic.
Through that I address point 6 and 9.
6) We don’t act on Climate Change and as a consequence the human world is restructured economically and socially by forces initially beyond our control. 1000 years before we reach the critical 4 degrees increase. There is upheaval. Much suffering. Population numbers fall, as a result of changes temperature levels fall. The changes are slow but relentless. Populations fall to manageable levels, a balance is eventually reached over people versus resources, where they live, how they live. The consequences affect social norms and how things have been done in the past which led to the global changes we are confronted with. The final outcome is one determined by seemingly random events and chaos that lead to stability. The possibility of extinction is averted.
Point 6 also allows for points 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7.
9) We act on Climate Change and restructure the world economically and socially. We act quickly. Reports indicate we have 12 years to act. Changes are extreme. Loss of jobs, loss of confidence, change to economic systems. Psychological disturbances reach high levels. We exert control over our actions and how we want the planet to be. Climate change is averted at a catastrophic level. Population numbers continue to grow, changes in government affect peoples’ ability to make free choices. The way of life for all cultures is pushed to change. All decisions must revolve around the environment and resources. Ideas about ethics and values are repositioned. The possibility if extinction is averted. Everything about point 6 happens with the addition of high population, tension over resources, borders, co-operation. The balance is enforced by authoritarian government, possibly a world government like the UN. Tight management is necessary. The constant battle to maintain control breeds new problems.
Point 9 allows for 1, 2, 5, 8, 9.
It's a hundred years.,,actually less...the 4 degrees rise in average global temperature is predicted to occur by 2100.
Yes, my apologies. You’re correct.
Most of the issues relating to climate change are in and of themselves undesirable. Excess CO2 emissions are pollution, and pollution should be minimized on general ecological principles. Desertification is significantly caused by industrial farming practices and these are demonstrably also intrinsically bad.
So we can address many of the underlying causes of climate change without having to dispute climate change itself.
The solution is simply the rejection of greed.
But that's not going to happen. We can see, given the facts, what ought be done; and yet do not act.
And Philosophy? It is irrelevant.
Quoting Banno
That’s an interesting comment. Philosophy has been done in the most dire of circumstances; the Russian gulags, prisoner of war camps and concentration camps. What it suggests is that philosophy is only applied to philosophy to be relevant.
Quoting Banno
So pleading to authority and the problem of induction, among other philosophical topics, aren't relevant in this discussion?
One should ask themselves if they are being consistent across the philosophical board, which includes their philosophical views of science, and the experts consensus that they have rejected in other fields, and fringe elements they have supported that are inconsistent with the experts consensus.
But clear thinking is not only found in Philosophy.
Indeed, clear thinking is rarely found in philosophy.
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/climate-change-and-philosophy-9780826440655/
Yes it’s a book. But I don’t understand a statement like yours on a philosophy forum. It doesn’t make sense. I put the link up to demonstrate that philosophy is hardly irrelevant in terms of climate change and others think so too.
Go ahead an philosophise. I won't stop you.
Just say you don’t want to do it. I won’t mind.
“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.”
I agree.
Are you sure that’s not something philosophy has anything to do with?
Rejecting ‘greed’ is a moralistic approach. ‘Greed is bad - let’s point out all the instances of behaviour and being that we recognise as greed and punish them for ruining the planet’. Not a solution.
The Tragedy of the Commons is a ‘tragedy’ because of the philosophy employed by users - one that is invariably characterised by exclusivity and isolation, but is more importantly ignorant of details regarding the resource itself, their fellow users, sustainable use parameters, responsibility, etc. Elinor Ostrom argues for a bottom-up approach to resource management that appears to successfully override this Tragedy of the Commons. At its heart (in my view) is the system-wide increase of awareness, connection and collaboration, achieved by that system supporting and encouraging awareness, connection and collaboration at smaller, local and more individual levels.
[quote="Banno;357401"
]Are there folk out there who did not realise that greed is a bad thing until they studied ethics?[/quote]
Is there really anything to talk about at all then? Why even be here?
Good point.
There would certainly be folk whose concept of ‘greed’ is not the same as yours. That you position certain behavioural observations as ‘greed’ and others don’t would be a matter of ‘philosophical’ discussion/debate/conflict in actualising your supposed solution of ‘rejecting greed’.
Maybe people think there is no relation between is and ought?
That may be a philosophical problem...
It could be useful to your readers if you edited your original OP with the corrected figure. And also provided a link to a relevant scientific study or UN report.
Well I don’t like to actually edit an OP. My correction is still clear at the bottom.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
Edit: and Janus had corrected it in the following post.
Some people won't bother reading that far if they encounter glaring mistakes. Correcting such mistakes just makes it easier for your readers.
Quoting Brett
I know. But my first impressions of your OP had already been formed. Anyway, just a suggestion.
Logic is a fundamental branch of philosophy - the branch that is used to ensure clear thinking. One might say that if you aren't using logic then you aren't philosophizing. They would be practicing in delusions and fallacious reasoning.
Quoting Andrew M
But it makes comments about the error on the following posts confusing.
Yeap (y)
, I'd just refer to the scientists that study such things, and then perhaps ask: What's the worst that can happen if we (try to) do something about it? And weighed against the risks of doing nothing?
You would just provide appropriate context if need be. For example, include an asterisk next to the correction and at the bottom of the post note the original mistake and perhaps credit Janus for pointing it out. That's the kind of thing news articles do (including, as it happens, the NY Magazine article you linked to).
Quoting jorndoe
I thought I just did that.
What's the problem?
This OP was not meant to address climate change as a discussion about it being real or not, or as a clear-headed discussion. It was to ask others to address it from their perspective as an economist, or sociologist, or psychology, whatever their interest. In some ways it’s the work of your imagination. Maybe this isn’t the place for that. Let me know.
If you are asking for solutions from particular perspectives I would say they could only ever be partial solutions. So, for example, economics needs to revise its notion of externalities, and become an ecological discipline that incorporates energy and entropy into all its models.
As to practical help they might offer sociology would need to develop new understandings and models of collective human behavior in crisis situations. Psychologists could play a role in helping people to cope and function under the stresses that come with crisis.
On the other hand mere theory won't be of much use: I don't think it could be helpful if, for example, sociological thinkers were to propose that climate change is merely another socially constructed discourse, or if psychologists were to assert that it is nothing more than an apocalyptic fantasy created by our primal fears.
As to whether this is "the place for this" I would say "why not?"; there's nothing wrong with thrashing all this stuff out, in fact it needs to be done honestly. clearly and critically, without succumbing to fears and wishful thinking, if the much-needed globally coordinated effort is to be possible. Polemical arguments won't be of much help, to say the least.
Quoting Janus
Correct. First of all I don’t believe that anyone here could offer a solution anyway. Opinions maybe, but we know they’re not the same, though there are many who think they are.
The amount of existential dread in the OP “Is halting climate change beyond man’s ability?”, is it real or some indulgence of the mind of the bloated 21st century consumer, lost, unmoored, insecure, not because of the threat of climate change but because there’s nothing left, no feeling, no beliefs to hold onto, no meaning; meaninglessness. Climate change gives people the existential jolt modern life has smothered.
Quoting Janus
That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Not that climate change is “nothing more than an apocalyptic fantasy created by our primal fears”, which suggests climate change is not real. See, that’s why these sort of discussions won’t happen, because it’s construed as a climate denial tool, when in fact there is something going on there.
Most people would receive their information about climate change from the media, less would do their own research. The media works on headlines, more on drama, less on information. Why not a discussion on primal fears, apocalyptic fantasies, why not look at possibilities? It’s not an attempt to deny something by running your fingers over it.
What are the consequences of children believing we are heading for extinction? What ideas are forming in their minds right now, not just about climate change but forms we can’t even conceive of, of who they are, what we are, what we believe in, why we get up in the morning?
Do you really imagine we can live in the simplistic state of mind where discussion over climate change is either agree or not and then cope with the complexities the world as it is presents to us and the future we’re moving into?
"What we are, we are." Descended from a common ancestor, we are closely related to the big primates like Pan Troglodytes (chimps and bonobos). The other primates don't have our problems because they are not quite smart enough. We have become smart enough, and acquired a lot of technology that enables our reach to exceed our grasp.
We are the sorcerer's apprentice: we cast a spell, the spell is causing problems, and we can't bring ourselves to undo the spell (we could, but we apparently won't) because we kind of like what the spell is doing.
We could save our world. You know, we really should do that. Will we? Probably not. The consequences of global warming are not quite as vivid in our minds as the consequences of behaving like responsible, prudent, thrifty human beings who can well imagine that the minor horror of not consuming so much stuff is trivial compared to the gross horror that billions of people now alive will witness.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, just who the hell are we, what are we? Maybe not as smart as we think, maybe this is all we are. Truth comes first. Like “My names Jim, I’m an alcoholic”. “My names Jim, I’m a human”.
Edit: not because I mess things up, but because I’m more like the centipede.
Just a thought here;
If children are taught in school about climate change on the basis that it’s real, without question, and they must be educated this way to save the world, what does that mean for critical thinking in school and the future? Critical thinking when we say so, otherwise don’t.
There's no point criticising scientific consensus on climate change from the layperson's position of relative ignorance. We don't have time for such shit. If you do educate yourself, so as to try to step a little out of your ignorance, and yet are not yourself a climate researcher or scientist, what sources do you think you will be relying upon for your edification?
So then, a future without critical thinking if we are to survive; no time for “ such shit.” So we survive as what?
To see that we must rely upon the experts is a realization that comes precisely from exercising critical thought. It is the uncritical who indulge in denial, deflection, obfuscation and wishful thinking.
Quoting Janus
Well a teacher would allow that there are scientists who do not agree, and would show that there is disagreement, so that they understand the truth presented to them, so that they use their minds in the way we expect of everyone. The teacher would create an environment of curiosity and discussion. Doesn’t the opposition of something sometimes prove the thing to be right? Modern education is based on critical thinking, it’s the cornerstone of western civilisation.
I’m just suggesting that if you put critical thinking on hold in schools then expect consequences. Maybe you think it’s worth it to do this, but don’t imagine there not to be knock on effects.
Quoting Janus
No, that’s not a realisation, that’s acquiescence to authority. How can anyone learn about critical thinking without doing it themselves?
Quoting Janus
Thats an interesting point in itself in relation to critical thinking. It’s a loaded statement meant to steer people away from critical thinking. What is there to fear so much in students applying critical thinking to climate change? Do you think they’re not smart enough to do it? If so then it follows that they’re not smart enough to do any critical thinking.
This is part of the point of my OP. Is education now going to be based on fear, because of the necessity? Is that what climate change will contribute to education in the long run and consequently to the nature of our students?
Can you present any reasoned disagreement in relation to the idea that humans have contributed to global warming, and that the burning of enormous quantities of fossil fuels over the last few hundred years is responsible for the current acceleration of global warming? If not then you are just talking through your hat.
Quoting Brett
Of course you have to do critical thinking yourself. But where, since you are not yourself a climate scientist, are you going to get the information upon which to exercise your critical thought if not from the experts. If there were significant disagreement among the experts then you would be in the uncomfortable layperson's position of finding it difficult to know what to believe, but since there is no significant disagreement what is there to be critical of, and where is the alternative understanding that might give you grounds for your criticism?
Quoting Brett
That's bullshit; it's a statement meant to steer people away from "denial, deflection, obfuscation and wishful thinking" which are precisely some of the pitfalls you need to avoid to achieve critical thinking.
I don’t think you’re able to talk about this in a reasoned way. So let’s leave it.
Is it possible that capitalism may largely contribute to solving the problem?
Quoting Jack Foreman
Very possible I would think. Capitalism is very adaptive.
I had a read of your essay. Very interesting and relevant to this OP. Thanks for putting it up.
Not so.
Capital is largely responsible (it's the key) CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. Why? The reason is that capitalism is, by its nature, based on exploitation of resources, growth, expansion, and profitability. Corporations are compelled by their charters, their raisons d'être, to behave the way they do, and can not do otherwise. Exxon has no reason under the sun to not pump as much oil as it can, driving out competitors, and maximizing profits.
On earth we have thousands of corporations pursuing their chartered purpose for existence, and industry requires unlimited energy--coal, oil, gas, and nuclear (and a tiny fraction of wind & solar). Thus we rush to over-run the 2ºC average temperature goal, with CO2 levels currently at 407 ppm (57 ppm above the safe level of 350).
Most of the people who populate corporations are not individually evil people. They don't have to be obsessed by greed; they might love the natural world (a major personal contradiction). They may, in their hearts, care about the future of the world. It doesn't matter. They are not at their jobs to worry about vanishing species; they are there to make money -- which is the only purpose corporations have for existing--make stuff and sell it at a profit.
What could capitalism do? Nothing, really. Our best option to enhance survival is to immediately and sharply reduce consumption of goods--everything from clothing to cars, gasoline to cheese curds. Consumption of stuff accounts to about 70% of the GDP. Why does cutting consumption help? Reduced consumption = reduced production = reduced output of CO2 and methane.
We don't have a lot of time. The world (including capitalists) has known about the threat to the world for at least 30 years (1988-present) and has so far accomplished virtually nothing towards reducing CO2 output.
Quoting Brett
Indeed. When Standard Oil (or Exxon) scientists discovered that CO2 levels were rising as a result of burning fossil fuels, the corporation considered the problem, and made the logical choice for an adaptable corporation: they buried the research and embarked on a program of confusing the public about global warming with the same methods tobacco companies used to confuse the public about the harms of smoking their product.
I wasn’t saying they were moral, only that they were adaptive. I think it’s a very interesting idea that Capitalism may contribute towards solving the climate problem simply because they do what is pragmatic in their interests. Having a market is oxygen to them. Why let your market become extinct? They need consumers, they need employees. They will adapt to survive. Even though I don’t believe it for a minute, corporations are beginning to play the virtual signalling game. That’s an adaptive change, not much, sure, but a change brought on by necessity..
Quoting Jack Foreman
You make an interesting point. I can’t help but feel that all the finger pointing is diverting attention away from important issues that are suddenly deemed irrelevant”. Why the finger pointing? It’s as if we all want an enemy, someone we can blame for all the areas we may have fallen short on, like community, family, caring, sharing and loving.
Yes I agree, assuming the climate was doing fantastic and all else was proceeding as is I’m not sure we’d really have less to be concerned over. It’s odd how on so many fronts we see to be more and more polarized. I feel as if a storm is brewing or a battle. I pray we’ll help each other through wisdom to weather the storm. If a battle is coming I’ll put my trust in the belief that all things can and do work together for good and try to do what is good for others. Part of that is probably learning to point the finger in the right direction: at ourselves.
It’s like a collective psychological disturbance. There’s nothing new there except the scale of it. Maybe this is the result of globalisation and technology. I think it will pass, though. But there will be damage to ideas of who and what we are. Too much of society will have been disrupted and too much of that passed on to the following generations as rational thought. My issue over critical thinking in schools is only one aspect of that. There are more if we’re prepared to look. I’d hoped this OP might contribute but it just tends to prove my point.
Are there places that do not have a capitalistic society that have in the past or are currently behaving in a manner that similarly seeks to exploit resources for the sake of growth and profit? By what means do you think the sharp turn around that you suggest is required be achieved? What system other than capitalism would work?
If we have the sense to create robots that carry forward enough of our characteristics to count, perhaps, but they better get on with it. Asbestos robots, I suppose.
But that's just too much expectation and just too unrealistic, l can't control the pessimist in me.
I think as a matter of course philosophers should be skeptical of anyone saying they can predict that far into the future with any accuracy, especially if these predictions are used to justify drastic changes.
From a nihilistic perspective, it's hard to care too much. I am pretty sure humans won't be around 200 years from now anyway. We should do what we can to make ourselves feel better about it but if it ultimately causes future generations problems or not won't matter to me after I'm dead.
Also, I believe it is real but it seems like a relatively manageable disaster going forward.
Quoting NOS4A2
I think the predictions are a way of imposing order in a chaotic world. It really is an existential moment on a grand scale.
I’ve said this before, that climate change, our response, is like some sort of Jungian archetype, a great shadow that overwhelms us, an unconscious response to the fears of the modern world, the meaninglessness we’re confronted with.
I think the situation we’re in is about doubts about how we’ve come to conceive of the modern world, what we thought it should be, a theoretical idea of a better world. We know somethings wrong but we don’t know what it is, or we do know and don’t know how to deal with it.
We embraced the idea of the global village, but it turns out that in facing climate change the culture differences do matter. China has no interest in what New Zealand thinks, it has no intention of pulling back on its growth or its geopolitical intentions.
We valued our cultural identity, our independence, but we’re told by global institutions that we must change who we are.
We don’t know who our friends are anymore, we know what’s right and wrong but it doesn’t seem to add up anymore.
We’re not sure anymore who we are except what we’re told we have to be; some sort of global mass of humanity to respond as one to directives from far away.
In a way, I suppose, we’re being compelled to look into the abyss, not by climate change, that’s only a symptom, and so we’re going to try and turn away from doing it. It’s a lot easier to talk about the climate change shadow, something ahead of us, still not real, than to look into the abyss. It’s a sort of transference of fear.