Our Species is Suicidal

[drogulus]

Yes. Fishing, sea fishing policies.

Each country reasons quite rightly from a self interested point of view that whatever the others do, they'll be better off fishing for cod. They all fish for cod. The result is no cod, and so everyone's worse off from a self interested point of view.

     That's called the tragedy of the commons, and a similar phenomenon in economics is called the paradox of thrift.

[Florestan]

I understand you don't need to believe anything without being given proof.

Tell you what: the proofs for God's existence are much more numerous than the proofs for our species being a suicidal one.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Tell you what: the proofs for God's existence are much more numerous than the proofs for our species being a suicidal one.

Suffient nuclear weapons to wipe out not just our species but many others and that's not suicidal?

As to God's existence which particular God are you talking about?
In your case I'm inclined to suspect it's the God of 2nd Thessalonians Ch 2:V11 . And no, I'm not willing to enter a theological discussion.

[Jo498]

The arguments for God's existence are never for "gods" (like Thor or Jove). They are arguments for the ONE, Absolute Being, Subsistent Being itself, unmoved mover or whatever you want to call it. It is not theology in the narrower sense but metaphysics. (And most people who think that these arguments are bogus have never bothered to try to understand them, even a decent philosopher like Mackie is frequently struggling with them and misrepresenting or misunderstanding crucial points partly because as a second generation anglo-analytic philosopher he has a very narrow conception of some elements of metaphysics.)
It is a totally different thing to argue that what is established by such general arguments is the same Being (although it is not a being among others (as Thor would be), rather Being itself) as the God of some revelation. Although of course the religious traditions also have arguments for such an identification, but they also know that they are necessary and usually not as strong as the more general ones.

[Mandryka]

because as a second generation anglo-analytic philosopher he has a very narrow conception of some elements of metaphysics.)

Maybe you could spell this out a bit.

[Madiel]

No cod, really? Is there no cod at all right now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_Atlantic_northwest_cod_fishery

[Todd]

[drogulus]

It is a totally different thing to argue that what is established by such general arguments is the same Being (although it is not a being among others (as Thor would be), rather Being itself) as the God of some revelation.

     There are no arguments for "Being" as a property that anyone must accept. The "basis" argument is that the Universe or a cat or a molecule has properties plus existence. A cat has 4 legs, fur, various meows and existence. What, I pretend to wonder, would cause one to treat existence as something needed in addition, and even more, what evidence could there be?

     Arguments can be incoherent in a way that they are equally opaque to proponents and skeptics. A proponent can claim that philosophers don't understand the ontological argument, or metaphysics generally, without feeling called upon to deliver a convincing explanation of their own. Metaphysicians don't have to understand the arguments they make, and confirm that they don't whenever they try. As a last resort (or a first resort for some) it's all a mystery. Passing this impossible burden on to critics is world class chutzpah. Why should critics be held responsible for coming up with sensical interpretations of nonsensical propositions? If you don't get what you say, how is that a lack of comprehension on my part?

     

[Marc]

Our species isn't suicidal. It's ignorant and arrogant.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Our species isn't suicidal. It's ignorant and arrogant.

'Suicidal' refers to behavior. Ignorance and arrogance are two of the causes.
I would however add the ignorance pushing climate change denial is in most cases wilful ignorance.
Now that we have the ability to instruct our mobiles ( cell phones in the US) and other devices to ignore news we don't wish to confront wilful ignorance is reinforced.

[drogulus]

'Suicidal' refers to behavior. Ignorance and arrogance are two of the causes.
I would however add the ignorance pushing climate change denial is in most cases wilful ignorance.
Now that we have the ability to instruct our mobiles ( cell phones in the US) and other devices to ignore news we don't wish to confront wilful ignorance is reinforced.

     Willfull ignorance it is, but in order for it to be suicidal it would have to be well founded that humans will go extinct. I don't think that's so. What is well founded is enormous damage to human civilization on an unprecedented level since the Bronze Age collapse.

     1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed

     https://www.youtube.com/v/bRcu-ysocX4&t=0s

[dissily Mordentroge]

Maybe you could spell this out a bit.

Please, don't encourage them.

[Madiel]

'Suicidal' refers to behavior. Ignorance and arrogance are two of the causes.
I would however add the ignorance pushing climate change denial is in most cases wilful ignorance.
Now that we have the ability to instruct our mobiles ( cell phones in the US) and other devices to ignore news we don't wish to confront wilful ignorance is reinforced.

Right, so in other words you're using a definition of suicidal totally at odds with normal usage.

Suicidal does NOT refer to behaviour. It refers to desire.

I recognise that people have a tendency to expand it to mean "engaging in risky behaviour" but frankly it's not helpful when you're starting off with a declaration to use the expanded meaning rather than the literal one.

[dissily Mordentroge]

Right, so in other words you're using a definition of suicidal totally at odds with normal usage.

Suicidal does NOT refer to behaviour. It refers to desire.

I recognise that people have a tendency to expand it to mean "engaging in risky behaviour" but frankly it's not helpful when you're starting off with a declaration to use the expanded meaning rather than the literal one.

Refreshing to encounter an understanging of the exact meaning of a term. We stand corrected. We do however tend these days to dumb down our lusage for , dare I say it, the masses. Me bad.

[Florestan]

I got the rule of this game: select one or two characteristics displayed by a great many members of our species and present them as defining the species as a whole. I'll play.

Our species is creative and caring.

or

Our species is altruistic and intelligent.

or

Our species has a keen sense of beauty and justice.

or

Our species is fun and gentle.

or

Our species has a marked penchant for both self-hatred and self-righteousness.

[steve ridgway]

Whatever one human being says, there is always another human being somewhere who will disagree with them.

[Madiel]

Whatever one human being says, there is always another human being somewhere who will disagree with them.

I don't think that's true.

[steve ridgway]

I don't think that's true.

[dissily Mordentroge]

     Willfull ignorance it is, but in order for it to be suicidal it would have to be well founded that humans will go extinct. I don't think that's so. What is well founded is enormous damage to human civilization on an unprecedented level since the Bronze Age collapse.

Consider just one scenario. Rising ocean levels force millions from low lying nations to flee. When millions are heading for your borders and you're armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons  - -   -  -      -

[drogulus]

Consider just one scenario. Rising ocean levels force millions from low lying nations to flee. When millions are heading for your borders and you're armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons  - -   -  -      -

     OK, I considered it. The U.S. has nuclear weapons and powerful conventional forces that could be used to defend its borders from any scale of climate migration. In historical terms this is not dissimilar to the catastrophes that collapsed every Bronze Age civilization. A couple of factors seem relevant to me. One is that the scale of the climate problem is greater than it was 3,000 years ago, the other is our ability to engineer climate mitigation is even greater, though it does appear that the best solutions will only be applied after all the worse ones have been given a chance to fail.