Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 5:55 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2024, 9:43 am Trying to repair the damage done does not necessarily involve mass executions or extermination.

Mo_reese wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2024, 11:55 am I am certainly not advocating such extreme actions, but that might be what an authoritarian world government might advocate to save humanity.
One thing we must do is to reduce the damage we are doing to the oceans.

If we somehow engineered a world government, magically capable of ruling, we might hope that they would concentrate on necessary measures, of which there are many, not unnecessary ones. The oceans are one priority, as you say. It's the formation of a global government that is the sticking-point...

But this is a distraction from your topic, so let's leave this distraction here?

Perhaps it is topical though! Maybe a world wide disaster would serve to align disparate nations and cultures .

Belinda wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:02 am Maybe a world wide disaster would serve to align disparate nations and cultures.

Demonstrably not: we already *have* a "world wide disaster", in the form of climate-change and ecocide, and it has served to divide nations, and seemingly to encourage them to 'double down' on all the old and damaging ways, instead of acting together to combat an existential threat to our species. And this brings us back on-topic, in the sense that greed has once more reared its ugly head.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:34 am

Belinda wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:02 am Maybe a world wide disaster would serve to align disparate nations and cultures.

Demonstrably not: we already *have* a "world wide disaster", in the form of climate-change and ecocide, and it has served to divide nations, and seemingly to encourage them to 'double down' on all the old and damaging ways, instead of acting together to combat an existential threat to our species. And this brings us back on-topic, in the sense that greed has once more reared its ugly head.

I seem to remember Ronny Raygun actually articulating the idea that an alien (extra terrestrial) threat would be something that would unite nations. I think it was one of his big ideas behnd the so-called "Starwars" project to place a ring of "defensive" satellites around the world. These never pointed outwards, however, but were just part of the bigger cold war arms race against the Soviets.
People thought his alien idea was quite funny.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 7:12 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:34 am

Belinda wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:02 am Maybe a world wide disaster would serve to align disparate nations and cultures.

Demonstrably not: we already *have* a "world wide disaster", in the form of climate-change and ecocide, and it has served to divide nations, and seemingly to encourage them to 'double down' on all the old and damaging ways, instead of acting together to combat an existential threat to our species. And this brings us back on-topic, in the sense that greed has once more reared its ugly head.

I seem to remember Ronny Raygun actually articulating the idea that an alien (extra terrestrial) threat would be something that would unite nations. I think it was one of his big ideas behnd the so-called "Starwars" project to place a ring of "defensive" satellites around the world. These never pointed outwards, however, but were just part of the bigger cold war arms race against the Soviets.
People thought his alien idea was quite funny.

Well, the 'alien' threat is here, but its origin, as we all know, was/is not "extra-terrestrial"; quite the contrary!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 8:38 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 7:12 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:34 am

Belinda wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 6:02 am Maybe a world wide disaster would serve to align disparate nations and cultures.

Demonstrably not: we already *have* a "world wide disaster", in the form of climate-change and ecocide, and it has served to divide nations, and seemingly to encourage them to 'double down' on all the old and damaging ways, instead of acting together to combat an existential threat to our species. And this brings us back on-topic, in the sense that greed has once more reared its ugly head.

I seem to remember Ronny Raygun actually articulating the idea that an alien (extra terrestrial) threat would be something that would unite nations. I think it was one of his big ideas behnd the so-called "Starwars" project to place a ring of "defensive" satellites around the world. These never pointed outwards, however, but were just part of the bigger cold war arms race against the Soviets.
People thought his alien idea was quite funny.

Well, the 'alien' threat is here, but its origin, as we all know, was/is not "extra-terrestrial"; quite the contrary!

The idea of an alien threat is here, yes. But those aliens are the solution to many of our economic problems.

Belinda wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 5:58 am

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑September 22nd, 2024, 2:11 am A world government of federated nations could work if it functioned democratically and each adult human had an equal vote, and if we had truly free media, if we had an incorruptible bureaucracy, if we had a good electoral system, and if we taxed corporations fairly to keep the government running ... If, if, if ... But we can't even manage democracy well on a national level let alone on a global level, so it's not going to happen. Therefore, I guess we have a choice between authoritarian regimes run by the likes of the CCP, dictatorial depots like Putin in Russia, or we muddle along with our far-from-perfect democracies.

I'll go with the latter. I just wish our democracies were social democracies who would stop the corporatization of everything and tax big, multinational corporations fairly so our quasi-democratic governments could do a bit more redistribution to even up the playing field. But even this modest proposal couldn't happen unless all nations agreed to tax the big corporations at the same rate. Otherwise the bast#*ds just go offshore to tax havens and take all the remaining jobs with them. Maybe if the 99% are squeezed much more by the 1% we'll have a revolution that might bring change, but revolutions are always messy and it's the people and not the 1% who always suffer.

Do you think trade unions can equalise the power differential between the workers and the 1%?

The trade unions fought for better pay and safer working conditions and got behind political parties that would legislate for change. Without them, we would still have kids working in coal mines. But successive governments controlled by the big corporations have destroyed trade unionism, partly by using their media to senationalise a few instanaces of corruption in a few unions, but mostly by promoting the gig economy and casualisation of employment. This is why the real wages of working people have been falling for decades. And why more and more of the wealth created by workers is being sucked up to the top 1%.

So, in answer to your question, no, the unions will never rise again, they will never be what they were up until about the mid 1970s when they could fight effectively for workers. Big corporations, and the governments they control, will never allow it. Union membership has been in decline for decades so that now, the unions are a pale shadow of their former selves. Union busting will continue and they will never be allowed to rise again to fght effectively for workers.

Workers increasingly have to work more than one casual job in different industries and they have to change jobs often so the old continuity of long-tem, full-time employment is gone, and because real wages have been falling for decades, workers can no longer afford union dues, especially not dues for several different unions in different industries. Today, there is no way working people in individual countries could wrest control of their elected governments from the big corporations and, without effective trade unions, they are unable to organise and fight for better pay and conditions. So they will continue to be screwed.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 8:38 am Well, the 'alien' threat is here, but its origin, as we all know, was/is not "extra-terrestrial"; quite the contrary!

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 12:23 pm The idea of an alien threat is here, yes. But those aliens are the solution to many of our economic problems.

Of course the 'aliens' I referred to are humans, as you clearly understood. But are they (we) really "the solution to many of our economic problems"? I suppose they must be, in the sense that we could, in theory, solve our economic (and other) problems. But in practice?

I suggest that, in practice, our greed overwhelms any possible solutions we come up with...?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 9:13 am
I suggest that, in practice, our greed overwhelms any possible solutions we come up with...?

I agree that unless we figure out a way to eliminate human greed we are doomed. We may be anywayz.

We could turn our lives over to AI but I think they'd see that humans are not symbiotic with the rest of the species and see no real use for us other than possible sources of energy for their needs.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 12:23 pm The idea of an alien threat is here, yes. But those aliens are the solution to many of our economic problems.

To describe most of our economic problems, we must think the unthinkable, and say the unsayable: the solution is not growth, especially continuous growth, it's *degrowth*!

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 9:13 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 8:38 am Well, the 'alien' threat is here, but its origin, as we all know, was/is not "extra-terrestrial"; quite the contrary!

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 12:23 pm The idea of an alien threat is here, yes. But those aliens are the solution to many of our economic problems.

Of course the 'aliens' I referred to are humans, as you clearly understood. But are they (we) really "the solution to many of our economic problems"? I suppose they must be, in the sense that we could, in theory, solve our economic (and other) problems. But in practice?

I suggest that, in practice, our greed overwhelms any possible solutions we come up with...?

Sorry for the aside. But...
Has your interface changed to an awful green clour with pale grey lettering.
I can hardly read the forum now.
Is there a way to change inside the app?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 11:57 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 23rd, 2024, 12:23 pm The idea of an alien threat is here, yes. But those aliens are the solution to many of our economic problems.

To describe most of our economic problems, we must think the unthinkable, and say the unsayable: the solution is not growth, especially continuous growth, it's *degrowth*!

Countries that have high birth rates, beyond their capacity to provide for the younger generation and trying to "donate" their young people to countries that have low and falling birth rates, beyind theri capacity to support the previous generation.
Immigration is the perfect solution here.
Immigrants have much lower crime rates; better work ethics and more appreciation for the host countries, despite what the bigfatorangebanyman says about "insane " asylums, and dog eating.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 5:36 pm Sorry for the aside. But...
Has your interface changed to an awful green clour with pale grey lettering.
I can hardly read the forum now.
Is there a way to change inside the app?

Read this? — link

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 25th, 2024, 8:08 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 5:36 pm Sorry for the aside. But...
Has your interface changed to an awful green clour with pale grey lettering.
I can hardly read the forum now.
Is there a way to change inside the app?

Read this? — link

Thanks I left a couple of observations on that thread.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 24th, 2024, 11:57 am
To describe most of our economic problems, we must think the unthinkable, and say the unsayable: the solution is not growth, especially continuous growth, it's *degrowth*!

We could ask AI for help determining how to live in balance with nature. However, I doubt that there is a way that would include any kind of freedoms for humans. If there is a way, all humans would have to adhere to the rules, which doesn't seem likely.

Lagayscienza, thanks for your longish and interesting reply about trade unions, I'm slow to learn politics and economics and hope to learn more.(The new website is also difficult for me and I hope I'll able to learn to negotiate it.)
I am going to read your post several times, as It's hard to believe there is no way out of the power of multinationals.