Philosophy Discussion Forums

Good_Egg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 4:07 am

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 4:08 am The conflict did not start last week.

Something happened last week. And that something was initiated by Hamas, has cost thousands of civilian lives, and will cost more until another truce in the ongoing conflict is established.

Two weeks ago millions of Palestinians were denied basic human rights, as they have been for decades

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:56 pm [To Consul]

Thanks for engaging. Everyone else is determinedly avoiding philosophy in favour of chasing shiny political objects.

I take your point, but the topic directs us to a major political conflict that has been festering for ~75 years. It is difficult to see a philosophical basis on which to begin a discussion. Perhaps I am blinded by my outrage at the conduct of the state of Israel and its 'allies'?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 9:21 am [To Consul]
According to your reasoning, then, the state of Israel is responsible for many thousands of deaths in occupied Palestine. If the Israelis had never invaded Palestine, all of these people would still be alive.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 10:56 am Yes. Had there been no Balfour Declaration, no Sykes/Pichot agreement - documents made completely without regard to the wishes of those who lived in the region; had there been no Jewish terrorist group killing British occupiers; had there not been a seizure of power from the British before the expiry of the Mandate.
Has the Israelis not stolen, imprisoned the local people; had they not stolen the land and started several wars against the Arab nations. Had Israel not denied basic rights. Had they not blockaded Gaza. Had they not destroyed thousands of buildings and prevented their rebuilding by banning building material. Had they not banned medicines..
the list of calumnies goes on an on...
So tens of thousands of deaths and the suffering of millions would have been avoided had Jews just stayed home in the US and Europe for the last 100 years.

And what is their claim about?? How on earth can one take that seriously?

Was it ever wise to re-set the geographical clock to the time of the Emperor Hadrian??
Yes, Israel exists, even Hamas has agreed to recognise it, yet where is Israel's response? Are they giving back the stolen territories? Are they going to respect international law.?
No.

Rahul Singh 29 wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 12:44 am Palestinian support Hamas is a terrorist outfit that controls Gaza. They attacked Israel with 5,000 rockets, targeting innocent people in Israel. More than thousands were killed, and more than 200 were captured by terrorists.

Israel is doing what needs to be done, basically tit for tat. Kill your enemy before your enemy kills you.

What do you want to say about this, Mr. Sculptor? Do terrorists have the right to kill innocent people?

What do you say, Mr Rahul Singh, about the 'right' of the state of Israel to invade and occupy Palestine, stealing their land and resources, and imprisoning the Palestinian people in the two small enclaves that remain of their country? Are the citizens of a country that has done these things truly "innocent"? This is not a one-sided affair.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 9:38 am This whole situation began in 1948, when UK/US/UN appeased Jewish terrorists by 'giving' them land in the Middle East, land that belonged to Palestinian people, and which they did not willingly give up. From then on, wrong piled upon wrong, until we reach the present-day. I see no easy answers.

"Let us start with a brief history lesson. Despite what the media has been preaching for almost 60 years, there is no historical Palestinian state or people. Over 4,000 years ago, there were small tribes living in Canaan, such as Moabites, Amalekites, etc. There was no Palestine of people or land. Then around 3,200 years ago, the 12 tribes of Israel, united under King Saul into the first kingdom in the region, a Jewish theocracy called “Israel.” That split into the kingdoms of Judah and Israel (both Jewish), which were conquered by the Babylonian empire a little over 2,500 years ago. This became the Persian Empire, which was defeated by Alexander the Great, and Israel was controlled by the Greeks.

The Greeks were defeated by the Hasmoneans, and Israel once again became a Jewish state about 2,200 years ago. The Hasmoneans were beaten by the Romans, and there followed a series of kingdoms that controlled Israel: Byzantine, Sassanid, Ummayad, Frankish, Christian, and eventually the Mamluk Dynasty, which controlled the region in the 13th-16th centuries. This is the first time there is a governmental Muslim presence in Israel, but again, it is not related to Palestine as a people or nation at all. The Mamluks ultimately were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the region until it was defeated by the British in the 20th century. Nowhere in this 3,000-year history does Palestine or Palestinians exist or even get discussed. The British created a mandate called “Palestine” on July 24, 1922, which was the first mention of the word in thousands of years.

For over 3,000 years, there has been no such thing as a Palestinian or a country of Palestine! So how did this Palestinian issue even start in modern times? In 1948, U.N. Resolution 181 granted statehood to two states: a Jewish one called Israel and an Arab one called Palestine. This is the first time there is a nation or people with the name of Palestine, even though they were in fact all Jordanians. Immediately, five Arab nations attacked Israel, which continued to be attacked repeatedly for the next 15 years but successfully defended her nationhood.

And now comes the seed that leads to the current support from the left of “Palestine.” In the early 1960s, the Arab coalition was not only physically losing wars, but was considered bullies of Israel in worldwide media. They were the Goliath that kept losing to David. So they hired the public relations firm of Dudley-Anderson-Yutzy in New York (founded in 1909, no longer in business) to change their image in the world. George Anderson told them they needed a “victim,” a group that would be perceived as smaller and even more abused than the Israelis, and the Palestinian cause was born.

At Anderson’s advice, the Palestinian Liberation Organization was established on May 28, 1964. This is the start date of the “Palestinian cause”: 1964. After the 1967 war, when Israel kept Gaza, the Sinai, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank, the concept of the Palestinians as victims became more popular. While ultimately Egypt made a land-for-peace deal with Israel and has kept that peace, the other nations refused to do the same. “Palestine” has always, and continues today, to define itself as “from the River” (Jordan) to the Sea (Mediterranean) and refuses to accept the State of Israel as a neighbor. The Arab schoolbooks in Gaza, the West Bank, and many Arab nations do not even include Israel in their maps as taught to children in 2023."

Source: https://pjmedia.com/columns/rabbi-micha ... s-n1735136

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:20 am

What do you say, Mr Rahul Singh, about the 'right' of the state of Israel to invade and occupy Palestine, stealing their land and resources, and imprisoning the Palestinian people in the two small enclaves that remain of their country? Are the citizens of a country that has done these things truly "innocent"? This is not a one-sided affair.
[/quote]

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:20 am What do you say, Mr Rahul Singh, about the 'right' of the state of Israel to invade and occupy Palestine, stealing their land and resources, and imprisoning the Palestinian people in the two small enclaves that remain of their country?

Invading and occupying, stealing resources and imprisoning people? How very English. Of course they should have done all this before the meddlesome UN was created, so they could occupy the high moral ground as well.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:15 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:56 pm [To Consul]

Thanks for engaging. Everyone else is determinedly avoiding philosophy in favour of chasing shiny political objects.

I take your point, but the topic directs us to a major political conflict that has been festering for ~75 years. It is difficult to see a philosophical basis on which to begin a discussion. Perhaps I am blinded by my outrage at the conduct of the state of Israel and its 'allies'?

It would appear to be so. Here we are, locked into the incredibly competitive ouroboros of life. The growth of whole has been driven by the ferocious competition between its components. It's easy to see today's problems as a cultural conflict within a single species, but the world is a whole lot more than humans, who are simply the current most influential major subsystem. In the broader scheme of things, Palestine and Ukraine are hiccoughs.

There's eight billion people on a planet that is already far less bountiful than it was a mere century ago in the midst of an extinction event. Someone's got to die - and in big numbers, because it's significantly unsustainable. This huge population locks in future catastrophes with unprecedented death tolls.

There are going to be major issues with supply chains regarding food, fertiliser and oil. Arable lands will be reduced by climate change. Also, there will be a squeeze on energy generally. As famine sets in, disease will follow. With huge populations, germs have more opportunity to mutate into something virulent. And so on.

What's happening now is tiny compared with what's in store over the next few decades, and that will be minuscule compared with the death, suffering destruction coming in the next century. Ukraine is doomed, Palestine is doomed. Israel is probably doomed too. Yemen is doomed. Taiwan is doomed. Koalas are doomed. Tuvalu is doomed. Elephants are doomed. Democracy is doomed.

I'll save my horror and outrage for the moment because I'll probably need it more later on. That's what philosophy is for, isn't it? To foster a broader perspective?

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:20 am What do you say, Mr Rahul Singh, about the 'right' of the state of Israel to invade and occupy Palestine, stealing their land and resources, and imprisoning the Palestinian people in the two small enclaves that remain of their country?

Robert66 wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 3:13 pm Invading and occupying, stealing resources and imprisoning people? How very English.

Is it "very English"? Perhaps it is. But it is also a correct description, yes?

Right or wrong, the state of Israel was created in 1948. Since then, Israel has extended those borders significantly, depriving the Palestinian people of their lands and homes. This is true and correct, yes? As for Israeli treatment of Palestinians, there is much evidence, easily available, to confirm this.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 16th, 2023, 5:56 pm [To Consul]

Thanks for engaging. Everyone else is determinedly avoiding philosophy in favour of chasing shiny political objects.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 7:15 am I take your point, but the topic directs us to a major political conflict that has been festering for ~75 years. It is difficult to see a philosophical basis on which to begin a discussion. Perhaps I am blinded by my outrage at the conduct of the state of Israel and its 'allies'?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pm It would appear to be so. Here we are, locked into the incredibly competitive ouroboros of life. The growth of whole has been driven by the ferocious competition between its components. It's easy to see today's problems as a cultural conflict within a single species, but the world is a whole lot more than humans, who are simply the current most influential major subsystem. In the broader scheme of things, Palestine and Ukraine are hiccoughs.

There's eight billion people on a planet that is already far less bountiful than it was a mere century ago in the midst of an extinction event. Someone's got to die - and in big numbers, because it's significantly unsustainable. This huge population locks in future catastrophes with unprecedented death tolls.

There are going to be major issues with supply chains regarding food, fertiliser and oil. Arable lands will be reduced by climate change. Also, there will be a squeeze on energy generally. As famine sets in, disease will follow. With huge populations, germs have more opportunity to mutate into something virulent. And so on.

What's happening now is tiny compared with what's in store over the next few decades, and that will be minuscule compared with the death, suffering destruction coming in the next century. Ukraine is doomed, Palestine is doomed. Israel is probably doomed too. Yemen is doomed. Taiwan is doomed. Koalas are doomed. Tuvalu is doomed. Elephants are doomed. Democracy is doomed.

I'll save my horror and outrage for the moment because I'll probably need it more later on. That's what philosophy is for, isn't it? To foster a broader perspective?

The thing is, I don't disagree with anything you say here. But I do observe that you have expanded the topic and its title to achieve the "broader perspective" that you say philosophy offers. But what is the philosophical discussion to be had about the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict"? I see politics, quite clearly, but I see no political philosophy, or any other kind of philosophy, here.

Help me out? What is the philosophical discussion here?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 12th, 2023, 4:46 pmLife is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities. Further, we are talking about humans here ... humans who kill other humans, have wiped most animals off the face of the Earth and filled their faces with animals flesh with glee at every opportunity. Not that humans are inherently bad. Any species with our empowerment would be similarly dominant, and we have much evidence that other empowered predatory species like chimps, dolphins and orcas can also be cruel.

My perspective is the following:

Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable. The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose.

I believe that reason can overcome darkness before it was ever present. There is simply no place for Evil in the context of reason and thus is there no place for anxiety and fear. Reflecting on cruelty (anxiety, suffering, pain, fear etc) in nature fuels cruelty while reflecting on reason enables one to become reasonable.

Spinoza once said "an attempt to escape evil with good results in evil". According to Spinoza, good only follows from reason.

Why did philosophers like William James (the father of pacifism or anti-war philosophy) attempt to create a theory to prevent war? Because there is no place for war within the scope of the potential of reason that their theory attempted to unlock. They saw an opportunity and invested to fulfil that opportunity for the higher purpose of humanity. They reflected on cruelty in nature but their theory would not allow for what they had reflected on. Their theory in a sense found an obligation in a (Jewish philosopher) Levinas style eschatological vision that is shortly described in this topic (post 3).

That eschatological vision is what I intended to indicate with "The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose." The potential to look beyond, shows that cruelty isn't something to settle for, and that one has a responsibility.

Levinas his work Totality and Infinity starts with the assertion that peace and the prevention of war is only possible through eschatological vision. To create a moral theory and to act on behalf of reason is to fulfil something of which it can be said that it is a moral obligation or a responsibility, in the face of an aspect that isn't contained within the world.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pmThere's eight billion people on a planet that is already far less bountiful than it was a mere century ago in the midst of an extinction event. Someone's got to die - and in big numbers, because it's significantly unsustainable. This huge population locks in future catastrophes with unprecedented death tolls.

That's an horrific perspective in my opinion. Elon Musk recently wrote the following about it on Twitter in response to a viral video in which primatologist Jane Goodall argued that it would be best for the planet when the human population would be 90% reduced.


In 2019 a group of over 11,000 scientists argued that eugenics can be used to reduce world population.

(2020) The eugenics debate isn't over – but we should be wary of people who claim it can reduce world population
Andrew Sabisky, a UK government adviser, recently resigned over comments supporting eugenics. Around the same time, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins — best known for his book The Selfish Gene — provoked controversy when he tweeted that while eugenics is morally deplorable, it “would work.”
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-eugenics- ... eople.html

(2020) Eugenics is trending. That's a problem.
Any attempt to reduce world population must focus on reproductive justice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... s-problem/

Would you support the application of eugenics to achieve world population reduction? Do you believe that in the case that humans decide that the world population must be reduced, that it should be done based on a 'wise' selection?

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pmthe death, suffering destruction coming in the next century.

I once wrote the following to Pattern-chaser in response to his assertion that humanity should be considered a plague species that is destroying the world, and that nature would oppose the human specie.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑April 20th, 2020, 11:48 amWhy would any sentient species want to support or aid the plague species that is destroying the world we all share? Surely sentient creatures would wish to oppose humanity in every way that they can? [Gaia again! ]

By asking the question why you essentially provide evidence for potential. Humans could make a mistake, but as is evident from your post, it may not intend to do so.

If nature has a purpose then humans may hold exceptional potential to serve nature's purpose well.

Philosophy could be held responsible. The potential for moral consideration in an individual - when made evident - can become a requirement or a responsibility in the face of human dignity. That potential for moral consideration is facilitated through a Levinas style eschatological vision which implies that philosophy has a primary responsibility.

Rahul Singh 29 wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 12:41 am After World War II, the Jewish people's quest for a homeland received international recognition, notably through the Balfour Declaration.

Well yes, that's true enough. But was it really a "quest"? The Balfour Declaration created Israel to appease Jewish terrorists, who bombed innocent civilians, and so forth. The state of Israel was founded to stop the terrorist attacks of Jewish extremists, yes?

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 am I believe that reason can overcome darkness before it was ever present. There is simply no place for Evil in the context of reason and thus is there no place for anxiety and fear.

There is no place for Evil in the context of reason only because that context does not admit subjective value judgements like "good" or "evil", yes?

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 12th, 2023, 4:46 pmLife is inherently harsh. In order to live, we have no choice but to kill and exploit other living entities. Further, we are talking about humans here ... humans who kill other humans, have wiped most animals off the face of the Earth and filled their faces with animals flesh with glee at every opportunity. Not that humans are inherently bad. Any species with our empowerment would be similarly dominant, and we have much evidence that other empowered predatory species like chimps, dolphins and orcas can also be cruel.

My perspective is the following:

Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable. The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose.

Then I am proud to be a barbarian and consider such "moral beings" to be living in Fantasy Land.

It's clear that in actual reality, eight billion humans are utterly incapable of being reasonable en masse. In fact, humans en masse have never at any stage displayed reason over a sustained period.

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pmThere's eight billion people on a planet that is already far less bountiful than it was a mere century ago in the midst of an extinction event. Someone's got to die - and in big numbers, because it's significantly unsustainable. This huge population locks in future catastrophes with unprecedented death tolls.

That's an horrific perspective in my opinion. Elon Musk recently wrote the following about it on Twitter in response to a viral video in which primatologist Jane Goodall argued that it would be best for the planet when the human population would be 90% reduced.

I did not provide a perspective, I spoke of an absolute certainty. Anyone who is not in denial would agree.

It perplexes me how often people - even on a philosophy forum FFS!! - cannot tell the difference between observation and endorsement.

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 amMy perspective is the following:

Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable. The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 2:56 pmThen I am proud to be a barbarian and consider such "moral beings" to be living in Fantasy Land.

It's clear that in actual reality, eight billion humans are utterly incapable of being reasonable en masse. In fact, humans en masse have never at any stage displayed reason over a sustained period.

What interests me more is why you are even speaking about it if you were to be correct.

I am currently finishing The Principles of Psychology vol 2. by William James and came across a chapter in which he described the bestial nature of humanity. He mentioned the following in his works ‘Remarks at the Peace Banquet’ and ‘The Moral Equivalent of War’:

The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement going.

Why the effort for an anti-war philosophy then, one wonders? Is William James somehow different from 'people' due to his intelligence or specialism in human psychology? Is Pattern-chaser different from 'the human specie' due to his being a self-proclaimed gaian-daoist?

Why would otherwise than war and bestiality be possible, as can be seen in the moral theory/vision developed by the philosophers who held a view such as William James, one of the founders of pacifism? Why would one intend to 'strive against nature' and formulate a moral theory that prevents war?

Those philosophers seem to have been motivated to go against their reflection on human nature in history. Why?

American philosopher Henry David Thoreau provides an insight that may explain the motivation for the philosophical effort of anti-war philosophers. Thoreau once said the following about the evolution of human morality:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

The behavior observed in newer generations of people supports Thoreau's assertion about the evolution of morality in human culture. Humans are gradually improving their moral behavior, just as Thoreau predicted. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals for moral consideration and Gen Z is accelerating a shift to veganism.

Then rests the question: why would humanity improve morally?

And there comes in the profound importance of the work of Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - with his concept eschatological vision that by its possibility proves that humanity has an intellectual responsibility to be ethical and respectful to others.

The possibility of eschatological vision is what I meant with 'the possibility of philosophy' and how that possibility would 'show the right path to choose' when it comes to either reflecting on cruelty on nature or reflecting on reason.

Of peace there can only be an eschatology.
...
This "beyond" the totality and objective experience is, however, not to be described in a purely negative fashion. It is reflected within experience. The eschatological, as the "beyond" of history, draws beings out of the jurisdiction of history and the future; it arouses them in and calls them forth to their full responsibility.
...
The idea of being overflowing history makes possible existents both involved in being and personal, called upon to answer as their trial and consequently already adult - but, for that very reason, existents that can speak rather than lending their lips to an anonymous utterance of history.

Peace is produced as this aptitude for speech. The eschatological vision breaks with the totality of wars and empires in which one does not speak. It does not envisage the end of history within being understood as a totality, but institutes a relation with the infinity of being which exceeds the totality.

The first "vision" of eschatology (hereby distinguished from the revealed opinions of positive religions) reveals the very possibility of eschatology, that is, the breach of the totality, the possibility of a signification without context. The experience of morality does not proceed from this vision - it consummates this vision; ethics is an optics. But it is a vision without image, bereft of the synoptics and totalizing objectifying virtues of vision, a relation or an intentionality of a wholly different type - which this work seeks to describe."


Pattern-chaser asked the following a few posts back:

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:48 am

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 am I believe that reason can overcome darkness before it was ever present. There is simply no place for Evil in the context of reason and thus is there no place for anxiety and fear.

There is no place for Evil in the context of reason only because that context does not admit subjective value judgements like "good" or "evil", yes?

In the context of reason there is just good because reason is an intellectual pursuit of good.

Ethically, there can be no justification for acts that originate from a lack of reason. One can hide behind error, but error should not be the intended result. Therefore barbarism such as war, violence, revenge or cruelty should be prevented on behalf of reason.

In practice, morality can be seen as an intellectual capacity that is dependent on the potential for moral consideration and that potential needs to be facilitated in some way, which is done through culture.

A cultural demand is a very strong demand which explains the cited vision of Henry David Thoreau with regard the moral evolution (civilization) of humanity.

Culture is shaped by philosophy and therefore my conclusion is that philosophy should be held responsible.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pm

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 am

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 17th, 2023, 5:50 pmThere's eight billion people on a planet that is already far less bountiful than it was a mere century ago in the midst of an extinction event. Someone's got to die - and in big numbers, because it's significantly unsustainable. This huge population locks in future catastrophes with unprecedented death tolls.

That's an horrific perspective in my opinion. Elon Musk recently wrote the following about it on Twitter in response to a viral video in which primatologist Jane Goodall argued that it would be best for the planet when the human population would be 90% reduced.

I did not provide a perspective, I spoke of an absolute certainty. Anyone who is not in denial would agree.

It perplexes me how often people - even on a philosophy forum FFS!! - cannot tell the difference between observation and endorsement.

What do you think of Elon Musk his argument that with proper (wise) management the planet can support many billions more people than the amount of people that inhabit earth today?

It is said that with a transition to micro algae based food innovation, the planet can not only support billions of more people, who have the ability to become significantly more healthy than humans today and even much beyond that (top sport performance capacity), but would also improve the health of the planet on the long term when humans would cultivate those algae.

(2022) Microalgae are nature’s ‘green gold’
Abundant sustainable food of the future to end global hunger. Algae offers the advantage of requiring neither soil nor pesticides nor irrigation. On top of that it provides enormous ecosystem services, creating a very rich habitat for fauna (shellfish, fish) and flora while also feeding the top of the ocean food chain (phytoplankton, bivalves) and ultimately animals.
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-microalga ... nment.html

(2020) Potential of Chlorella Algae to Promote Human Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7551956/

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 6:02 pm

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 10:41 amMy perspective is the following:

Barbarians reflect on cruelty in nature to fuel cruelty. Moral beings reflect on reason to become reasonable. The potential for philosophy shows what path is right to choose.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 2:56 pmThen I am proud to be a barbarian and consider such "moral beings" to be living in Fantasy Land.

It's clear that in actual reality, eight billion humans are utterly incapable of being reasonable en masse. In fact, humans en masse have never at any stage displayed reason over a sustained period.

What interests me more is why you are even speaking about it if you were to be correct.

I am currently finishing The Principles of Psychology vol 2. by William James and came across a chapter in which he described the bestial nature of humanity. He mentioned the following in his works ‘Remarks at the Peace Banquet’ and ‘The Moral Equivalent of War’:

The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement going.

Why the effort for an anti-war philosophy then, one wonders? Is William James somehow different from 'people' due to his intelligence or specialism in human psychology? Is Pattern-chaser different from 'the human specie' due to his being a self-proclaimed gaian-daoist?

Why would otherwise than war and bestiality be possible, as can be seen in the moral theory/vision developed by the philosophers who held a view such as William James, one of the founders of pacifism? Why would one intend to 'strive against nature' and formulate a moral theory that prevents war?

Those philosophers seem to have been motivated to go against their reflection on human nature in history. Why?

Either William James's relationship with reality is tenuous or he was having an emotional moment. People want war? That is nonsense.

Most people hate war, but sometimes attacks happen and one must defend oneself. Sometimes war benefits powerful minorities and they can manipulate the masses to rally around them. The problem is that, it only takes one militant war lover amongst millions to trigger major massacres. Ideally, the millions would lynch anyone who'd conduct rash attacks and bring hell down on the people, but humans are not rational agents. Often they will lionise those who screw them the hardest.

It does not matter how much certain groups coordinate and civilise, globally there is no accord. Further, even when groups coordinate and civilise, they will take backward steps. Or the society might simply fail altogether. In the meantime, rifts are widening and the chances of global cooperation on any issue is becoming ever less likely.

value wrote: ↑October 18th, 2023, 6:02 pmWhat do you think of Elon Musk his argument that with proper (wise) management the planet can support many billions more people than the amount of people that inhabit earth today?

It is said that with a transition to micro algae based food innovation, the planet can not only support billions of more people, who have the ability to become significantly more healthy than humans today and even much beyond that (top sport performance capacity), but would also improve the health of the planet on the long term when humans would cultivate those algae.

I think that Elon Musk

(2022) 🦠 Microalgae are nature’s ‘green gold’
Abundant sustainable food of the future to end global hunger. Algae offers the advantage of requiring neither soil nor pesticides nor irrigation. On top of that it provides enormous ecosystem services, creating a very rich habitat for fauna (shellfish, fish) and flora while also feeding the top of the ocean food chain (phytoplankton, bivalves) and ultimately animals.
https://phys.org/news/2022-09-microalga ... nment.html

(2020) Potential of Chlorella Algae to Promote Human Health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7551956/
[/quote]
Either Elon Musk's relationship with reality is tenuous or he was having an emotional moment. This is because Elon swans around the world in private jets rather than living in a cage complex in Hong Kong, living under a rag on a stick in one of Africa's many wars, and living out on cold city streets. I expect the view from his vantage point is fabulous.

The planet can support many more billions? That is nonsense. The planet is far from being able to sustain eight billion.

I'm suppose the planet could support more people if:

- humans no longer behave like humans, and instead all become saint-like
- climate change was not already happening
- most ecosystems weren't already destroyed or diminished
- if most large species (including keystone species) weren't endangered
- if corporations and billionaires paid proportionately as much tax as any one else.