Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Pattern-chaser]

There is so much scientific thinking about the possibilities which lie ahead. Beyond that, there is the whole realm of values. There are people who are deeply concerned about the possibility of the end of civilisation and life and others who do not care at all. In the sphere of the ethical and political values, it may come down to priorities and understanding of what matters beyond the personal in terms of the universal or wider schemes of humanity and nature.

Yes, indeed. But we have now reached a point where there is a genuine consensus within science concerning human-created ecological disaster. Not that consensus = truth, but it is fair to say that the nay-sayers are now in a relatively small minority, and are very likely wrong, or at least mistaken.

[Mercury]

Yes, indeed. But we have now reached a point where there is a genuine consensus within science concerning human-created ecological disaster. Not that consensus = truth, but it is fair to say that the nay-sayers are now in a relatively small minority, and are very likely wrong, or at least mistaken.

While terribly rude to interject; and for that, I apologise - consensus as to the fact of a human induced climate and ecological crisis does not constitute agreement that there are 'Limits to Growth.'

I seem to recall you writing earlier about 'the illusion of technology' - and I wondered if you would explain why you regard the application of technology as an illusory approach to this crisis.

As you are aware, I advocate magma energy technology - a source of clean energy so immensely monolithic it could transcend the 'limits to growth' inherent to a fossil fuel based economy; internalising the externalities of capitalism with desalination, irrigation, recycling and carbon capture - and so allow for a prosperous sustainable future.

I believe you are blinding yourself to these facts to maintain your anti capitalist political bias - which is, precisely the criticism I level at the environmental movement as a whole even while I share their concerns and admire their moral courage.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, indeed. But we have now reached a point where there is a genuine consensus within science concerning human-created ecological disaster. Not that consensus = truth, but it is fair to say that the nay-sayers are now in a relatively small minority, and are very likely wrong, or at least mistaken.

While terribly rude to interject; and for that, I apologise...

No need. Conversations here are open to all members of the forum, aside from DMs.

consensus as to the fact of a human induced climate and ecological crisis does not constitute agreement that there are 'Limits to Growth.'

I seem to recall you writing earlier about 'the illusion of technology' - and I wondered if you would explain why you regard the application of technology as an illusory approach to this crisis.

As you are aware, I advocate magma energy technology - a source of clean energy so immensely monolithic it could transcend the 'limits to growth' inherent to a fossil fuel based economy; internalising the externalities of capitalism with desalination, irrigation, recycling and carbon capture - and so allow for a prosperous sustainable future.

I believe you are blinding yourself to these facts to maintain your anti capitalist political bias - which is, precisely the criticism I level at the environmental movement as a whole even while I share their concerns and admire their moral courage.

Energy, even "limitless" energy, cannot restore or replace many things that we need. For example, the consumption of energy produces heat, which contributes directly to the climatic extremes we are currently experiencing. There are many other examples too. We consume too much.

[Mercury]

Energy, even "limitless" energy, cannot restore or replace many things that we need. For example, the consumption of energy produces heat, which contributes directly to the climatic extremes we are currently experiencing. There are many other examples too. We consume too much.

The earth emits 47 terrawatts of heat energy daily; many times global energy demand. The problem is not how much heat is emitted, but that it is trapped in the atmosphere by increasing concentrations of Greenhouse Gasses. Tapping into, and utilising some small portion of the heat energy earth emits everyday anyway would not increase the total amount of heat discharged into the atmosphere, but it would reduce the Greenhouse Gasses trapping heat in the atmosphere.

[Pattern-chaser]

Tapping into, and utilising some small portion of the heat energy earth emits everyday anyway would not increase the total amount of heat discharged into the atmosphere...

Yes it would. Unless you know of a way — any way — in which energy can be used/consumed/dissipated with 100% efficiency? If not, then energy use adds heat to the biosphere.

[Pattern-chaser]

Tapping into, and utilising some small portion of the heat energy earth emits everyday anyway would not increase the total amount of heat discharged into the atmosphere...

Yes it would. Unless you know of a way — any way — in which energy can be used/consumed/dissipated with 100% efficiency? If not, then energy use adds heat to the biosphere.

Oops, sorry: it would not increase the heat, but the heat output would remain the same, and the damage it continues to do would be unaffected.

[JackDaydream]

There is so much scientific thinking about the possibilities which lie ahead. Beyond that, there is the whole realm of values. There are people who are deeply concerned about the possibility of the end of civilisation and life and others who do not care at all. In the sphere of the ethical and political values, it may come down to priorities and understanding of what matters beyond the personal in terms of the universal or wider schemes of humanity and nature.

Yes, indeed. But we have now reached a point where there is a genuine consensus within science concerning human-created ecological disaster. Not that consensus = truth, but it is fair to say that the nay-sayers are now in a relatively small minority, and are very likely wrong, or at least mistaken.

The way in which I see it that there are many uncertainties facing humanity, but the ecological ones seem to be a fair certainty. Some may wish to escape from the nightmare possibilities, but this may be mere sidestepping, especially in relation to the moral situation of future generations. The situation of all present living beings cannot be undermined, but with a view to the future. Both aspects may be important as opposed to the shortsidedness of immediacy, as well as the basis of the self interest. Of course, there is a danger of normalising, and taking this more in line with philosophy thinking, it may be about weighing up the personal and more universal as a basis for thinking about the future and ethics.

[JackDaydream]

We live in a socialist world dominated by welfare payments to corporate interests.

A socialist world would not shower benefits on "corporate interests", but on the poor and needy.

I wonder to what extent capitalism or socialism may be helpful in thinking about the future of humanity. Socialism has identified the importance of needs of individuals. The tensions between economic growth, inequality and human need are so strong. Part of the problem may come down to human nature. However, there is the question as to whether human beings are completely self-interested or not. So, some of the value aspects of ethics and politics may come down to the question of human nature, balanced against practical and technological possibilities.

[Mercury]

Tapping into, and utilising some small portion of the heat energy earth emits everyday anyway would not increase the total amount of heat discharged into the atmosphere...

Yes it would. Unless you know of a way — any way — in which energy can be used/consumed/dissipated with 100% efficiency? If not, then energy use adds heat to the biosphere.

Talking to you!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. But you're wrong. The earth's emission of geothermal heat, to say nothing of heating by the sun - are off the charts by comparison to human sources of heat.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hea ... genic_heat

"Anthropogenic heat is a much smaller contributor to global warming than greenhouse gases are. In 2005, anthropogenic waste heat flux globally accounted for only 1% of the energy flux created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

And that's burning vast quantities of oil, gas and coal. Not, as I suggest - utilising heat energy that was being given off by the earth anyway. It's not an issue. The issue is heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses - and magma/electricity/hydrogen a carbon free source of truly massive amounts of energy.

What's very difficult to appreciate is how such vast quantities of energy spend would change the equation with regard to population and planetary resources. I assure you 'Limits to Growth' is not true if you have limitless clean energy to spend - and supplying that amount of clean energy is technologically possible.

A quad is a quadrillion btu. World energy demand today is around 600 quads.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract

The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept.

This is how we must approach sustainability - from the supply side, with boatloads of clean energy; not by stamping on people to reduce demand!

[JackDaydream]

Tapping into, and utilising some small portion of the heat energy earth emits everyday anyway would not increase the total amount of heat discharged into the atmosphere...

Yes it would. Unless you know of a way — any way — in which energy can be used/consumed/dissipated with 100% efficiency? If not, then energy use adds heat to the biosphere.

Talking to you!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist. But you're wrong. The earth's emission of geothermal heat, to say nothing of heating by the sun - are off the charts by comparison to human sources of heat.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_hea ... genic_heat

"Anthropogenic heat is a much smaller contributor to global warming than greenhouse gases are. In 2005, anthropogenic waste heat flux globally accounted for only 1% of the energy flux created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases."

And that's burning vast quantities of oil, gas and coal. Not, as I suggest - utilising heat energy that was being given off by the earth anyway. It's not an issue. The issue is heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gasses - and magma/electricity/hydrogen a carbon free source of truly massive amounts of energy.

What's very difficult to appreciate is how such vast quantities of energy spend would change the equation with regard to population and planetary resources. I assure you 'Limits to Growth' is not true if you have limitless clean energy to spend - and supplying that amount of clean energy is technologically possible.

A quad is a quadrillion btu. World energy demand today is around 600 quads.

Status of the Magma Energy Project
Dunn, J. C. (Sandia National Labs., Albuquerque, NM.)
Abstract

The current magma energy project is assessing the engineering feasibility of extracting thermal energy directly from crustal magma bodies. The estimated size of the U.S. resource (50,000 to 500,000 quads) suggests a considerable potential impact on future power generation. In a previous seven-year study, we concluded that there are no insurmountable barriers that would invalidate the magma energy concept.

This is how we must approach sustainability - from the supply side, with boatloads of clean energy; not by stamping on people to reduce demand!

I may be crazy in some ways but I do wonder how the human aspects of energy fit into the larger perspective of energy and heat. I read about solar flares and some of this may be abstract. Nevertheless, human beings exist in relation to the wider ecological concerns, with regard to thinking of our effects. So, I am left with the larger question of trying to understand where do human beings, as conscious beings, able to think about morality and reasoning about effects fit into the larger perspective of nature?

[Sy Borg]

The future is extinction. There are no happy endings, only incomplete stories.

[Mercury]

I may be crazy in some ways but I do wonder how the human aspects of energy fit into the larger perspective of energy and heat. I read about solar flares and some of this may be abstract. Nevertheless, human beings exist in relation to the wider ecological concerns, with regard to thinking of our effects. So, I am left with the larger question of trying to understand where do human beings, as conscious beings, able to think about morality and reasoning about effects fit into the larger perspective of nature?

I'm not one to come over all spiritual, but I often get the sense there's something in the idea of humans harnessing the heat energy of the earth, intelligently directing its application to promote the life of the planet from which we sprung. But then I see the possibility of a world crafted into a living architectural gem beyond the horizon of mere survival.

[Pattern-chaser]

The future is extinction. There are no happy endings, only incomplete stories.

Perhaps, more than anything else, this sums up our situation. I admire your poetic choice of words; they brought to me a thought I hadn't had before, that seems to bring home the seriousness of it all: our stories won't end (even if we will), they'll be left incomplete. We all like to think we'll leave some kind of legacy behind. And we will. But it will be a broken and incomplete legacy, not at all what we imagined, or would prefer.

I think the least we can and should do is to try to minimise the catastrophe, as best we can. Time to stop pretending there are magic solutions to the problems we have caused; there aren't. First, we need to 'put the brakes on', and slow our depredations, until we are no longer adding to damage already done. That's "net zero", where we are no longer making things any worse than they already are. Then the real work begins, to try to undo or reverse some of the damage we've done. And we will need to give up our lives of sybaritic luxury (even if we don't see our lives as such).

[Sy Borg]

People think of many "shoulds" but they never happen. We've known about climate change for over half a century but there is enormous latency, the rise of China and India with their sharply increased fossil fuel use and resource consumption, plus geopolitical tensions puts paid to any chance of global action.

I think there will inevitably be breaking points and at some stage in the next century we will see casualties of major events far beyond anything seen before, through our record numbers and consumption levels.

[JackDaydream]

I may be crazy in some ways but I do wonder how the human aspects of energy fit into the larger perspective of energy and heat. I read about solar flares and some of this may be abstract. Nevertheless, human beings exist in relation to the wider ecological concerns, with regard to thinking of our effects. So, I am left with the larger question of trying to understand where do human beings, as conscious beings, able to think about morality and reasoning about effects fit into the larger perspective of nature?

I'm not one to come over all spiritual, but I often get the sense there's something in the idea of humans harnessing the heat energy of the earth, intelligently directing its application to promote the life of the planet from which we sprung. But then I see the possibility of a world crafted into a living architectural gem beyond the horizon of mere survival.

I do find the idea of 'Gaia' by James Lovelock to be fairly helpful. However, it is hard to know to what extent it is mythic rather than literal, although I do have some interest in the panpsychic perspective. It is possible that the earth itself, as well as other planets have some consciousness. In that respect, while the prospects for humanity and the Earth appear grim it is hard to know if they are parts of a larger process, such as cosmic cycles.