Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I find it quite disturbing how many people use genuine environmental issues as an excuse to trot out all the things they wanted to do anyway. Those who've been in favour of higher taxes, more immigration, authoritarian governments etc since long before they could spell "environment" somehow manage to interpret the real environmental crisis as requiring higher taxes, more immigration and authoritarian governments that tell us what we can and can't have...

And this fuels all the conspiracy theories that the crisis isn't real.

TBH, I think that's a red herring. If you, or I, pursue something that deserves to be pursued, then does it really matter why we're doing it? Does it really matter if we manage to nurture our other interests as well, as long as we're acting correctly in the first place?

[Sy Borg]

I find it quite disturbing how many people use genuine environmental issues as an excuse to trot out all the things they wanted to do anyway. Those who've been in favour of higher taxes, more immigration, authoritarian governments etc since long before they could spell "environment" somehow manage to interpret the real environmental crisis as requiring higher taxes, more immigration and authoritarian governments that tell us what we can and can't have...

And this fuels all the conspiracy theories that the crisis isn't real.

Yes, the ESG agenda has been a lie - touting solutions that are unable to handle baseload power, and continued denial about this. As you suggest, the agenda is to weaken the west - to level the global playing field. Corporations use it to create wonderful new "green" products using coal-fired power - especially SUVS. If people kept driving their old petrol powered car instead of buying a new SUV they would dramatically reduce their greenhouse emissions.

The left's attitudes today are perplexing. I was a centre-left type all my life but the left has gone Full Marx. Thank you to Ivy League universities for their role in wrecking western cultures! The only logic to their ideas is to destroy European culture.

Logically, how can one be an environmentalist and support record levels of immigration?

How can one favour feminism and anti-discrimination, yet unfailingly show more support to cultures that kill gays, and subjugate women and foreigners than to the west (Note: these countries ACTUALLY do subjugate, not the tiny inconveniences of western "subjugation" of women)?

As for the left wanting authoritarian systems, that's pure naivety. Whenever there's an authoritarian takeover in European-based countries, the first ones against the wall are queers, and left wing intellectuals and activists.

The left keeps blaming "whites" for every problem of the world, but "white privilege" has nothing to do with race. In the west, whites tend to be the majority - it's just majority rule. In Egypt, the Arab privilege. In the DRC it's Bantu privilege. In the US, it was white privilege before the current move to pain white people as considered inherently sinful and a a lower form of life. Every nation's majority is permitted to be dominant but the self-flagellating west. White privilege is a lie, and a divisive and dangerous one.

The current left needs to be crushed. They have abused their freedom and it should now be forfeit. The only way forward is, well, forward. We need to get AI to do things that would have been done by competent working age people, who appear to be in ever shorter supply. We also need to see if AI can devise better ways of sustainably using what is left of the natural world.

[Stoppelmann]

The left's attitudes today are perplexing. I was a centre-left type all my life but the left has gone Full Marx.

I think that "Full Marx" is wrong, and perhaps fully appreciating Marx's work might have been the solution.

Karl Marx's ideas extend beyond politics and encompass various aspects of society and human nature. While Marx is widely known for his contributions to political philosophy and economics, his theories also delve into sociology, history, and even aspects of psychology. Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and social psychologist, identified as a Marxist and incorporated Marx's ideas into his work, but he focused more on the psychological and social dimensions rather than political aspects. In his book, To Have or To Be, he showed that there were political consequences but that any change would have to be more profound than just changing the system.

In his book Marx's Concept of Man, Fromm emphasised the humanistic and psychological aspects of Marx's thought. He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being. He argued that Marx's ideas could be applied to understanding the human psyche and the alienating effects of modern capitalist societies. So, Marx may be applied to political and economic ideas, but it would be incomplete without applying broader social and psychological perspectives associated with thinkers like Erich Fromm to analyse various aspects of human life and society.

[Sy Borg]

The left's attitudes today are perplexing. I was a centre-left type all my life but the left has gone Full Marx.

I think that "Full Marx" is wrong, and perhaps fully appreciating Marx's work might have been the solution.

Karl Marx's ideas extend beyond politics and encompass various aspects of society and human nature. While Marx is widely known for his contributions to political philosophy and economics, his theories also delve into sociology, history, and even aspects of psychology. Erich Fromm, a psychoanalyst and social psychologist, identified as a Marxist and incorporated Marx's ideas into his work, but he focused more on the psychological and social dimensions rather than political aspects. In his book, To Have or To Be, he showed that there were political consequences but that any change would have to be more profound than just changing the system.

In his book Marx's Concept of Man, Fromm emphasised the humanistic and psychological aspects of Marx's thought. He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being. He argued that Marx's ideas could be applied to understanding the human psyche and the alienating effects of modern capitalist societies. So, Marx may be applied to political and economic ideas, but it would be incomplete without applying broader social and psychological perspectives associated with thinkers like Erich Fromm to analyse various aspects of human life and society.

It's social Marxism, where the Bourgeoisie and Workers have been replaced by Oppressors and Oppressed.

[Lagayascienza]

Marx made some of sense, and it might be argued that Stalin and Mau took Marx's idea and twisted into something beyond recognition. But even so, maybe it is wise to distrust all over-arching ideologies that promise the world. They just never seem to deliver on the promise.

[Stoppelmann]

Marx made some of sense, and it might be argued that Stalin and Mau took Marx's idea and twisted into something beyond recognition. But even so, maybe it is wise to distrust all over-arching ideologies that promise the world. They just never seem to deliver on the promise.

He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being, rather than promising the world. Just as anyone might understand the declaration of Human Rights.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, but those who came after Marx took what he wrote and did promise the world. A dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist utopia. It was a recipe for disaster. Humans just aren't like the eusocial insects. As for the Declaration of Human Rights, it is an aspiration, not a recipe for the perfect society.

[Sy Borg]

Marx made some of sense, and it might be argued that Stalin and Mau took Marx's idea and twisted into something beyond recognition. But even so, maybe it is wise to distrust all over-arching ideologies that promise the world. They just never seem to deliver on the promise.

He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being, rather than promising the world. Just as anyone might understand the declaration of Human Rights.

Yes, but those who came after Marx took what he wrote and did promise the world. A dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist utopia. It was a recipe for disaster. Humans just aren't like the eusocial insects. As for the Declaration of Human Rights, it is an aspiration, not a recipe for the perfect society.

History has shown that Marxism is not compatible with humans as we have been, or how we are now.

I used to think that democratic socialism, as practiced in Sweden, was the ideal compromise but look at the civil unrest in Sweden now. Maybe social democracy needs a some nationalist tweaks to work?

All my life, I have scorned nationalism but, after seeing numerous western countries surrendering their culture. That would be fine if all the other nations similarly surrendered their culture, but they have clung to their cultures ever more strongly as we throw away what we worked so hard to build, based on false ideologies.

No, not all societies are equal. Some societies are objectively better for their denizens than others, although one dare not say which for fear of the Brain Police.

[Good_Egg]

The tricky bit is all of us deciding and agreeing to do it.

Very true.

We've known the answer for more than 50 years - zero population growth and "polluter pays" economics.

But somehow we can't seem to do it.

The religious conservatives are too offended by free contraception.

And we can't seem to get past arguing over the politics of who pays how much....

[Lagayascienza]

Marx made some of sense, and it might be argued that Stalin and Mau took Marx's idea and twisted into something beyond recognition. But even so, maybe it is wise to distrust all over-arching ideologies that promise the world. They just never seem to deliver on the promise.

He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being, rather than promising the world. Just as anyone might understand the declaration of Human Rights.

Yes, but those who came after Marx took what he wrote and did promise the world. A dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist utopia. It was a recipe for disaster. Humans just aren't like the eusocial insects. As for the Declaration of Human Rights, it is an aspiration, not a recipe for the perfect society.

History has shown that Marxism is not compatible with humans as we have been, or how we are now.

I used to think that democratic socialism, as practiced in Sweden, was the ideal compromise but look at the civil unrest in Sweden now. Maybe social democracy needs a some nationalist tweaks to work?

All my life, I have scorned nationalism but, after seeing numerous western countries surrendering their culture. That would be fine if all the other nations similarly surrendered their culture, but they have clung to their cultures ever more strongly as we throw away what we worked so hard to build, based on false ideologies.

No, not all societies are equal. Some societies are objectively better for their denizens than others, although one dare not say which for fear of the Brain Police.

Maybe you were right to scorn virulent forms of nationalism, Sy Borg. Nazism and Fascism didn't seem to bring about a utopia for anyone - certainly not for Slavs, Jews, Roma or gays, for example. Nazism was hell bent on territorial expansion and on exterminating or enslaving other cultures and races and that pissed others off (understandably) and so we had a world war. Perhaps it's wise to be wary of all grand narratives. But when it comes to protecting ones own culture why should anyone be criticized? It's natural to want to do so. The desire to protect our culture is the main reason I don't agree with mass immigration into Australia of people from non-democratic, theocratic cultures who won't integrate. Some might want to call that racism. But it's not about race. It's about culture. In our democratic culture we can live as we chose and say, pretty much, whatever we want. We value that and want to preserve it. Nothing wrong with that.

[Sy Borg]

Marx made some of sense, and it might be argued that Stalin and Mau took Marx's idea and twisted into something beyond recognition. But even so, maybe it is wise to distrust all over-arching ideologies that promise the world. They just never seem to deliver on the promise.

He was interested in how social and economic structures influenced human behaviour, relationships, and individual well-being, rather than promising the world. Just as anyone might understand the declaration of Human Rights.

Yes, but those who came after Marx took what he wrote and did promise the world. A dictatorship of the proletariat and a socialist utopia. It was a recipe for disaster. Humans just aren't like the eusocial insects. As for the Declaration of Human Rights, it is an aspiration, not a recipe for the perfect society.

History has shown that Marxism is not compatible with humans as we have been, or how we are now.

I used to think that democratic socialism, as practiced in Sweden, was the ideal compromise but look at the civil unrest in Sweden now. Maybe social democracy needs a some nationalist tweaks to work?

All my life, I have scorned nationalism but, after seeing numerous western countries surrendering their culture. That would be fine if all the other nations similarly surrendered their culture, but they have clung to their cultures ever more strongly as we throw away what we worked so hard to build, based on false ideologies.

No, not all societies are equal. Some societies are objectively better for their denizens than others, although one dare not say which for fear of the Brain Police.

Maybe you were right to scorn virulent forms of nationalism, Sy Borg. Nazism and Fascism didn't seem to bring about a utopia for anyone - certainly not for Slavs, Jews, Roma or gays, for example. Nazism was hell bent on territorial expansion and on exterminating or enslaving other cultures and races and that pissed others off (understandably) and so we had a world war. Perhaps it's wise to be wary of all grand narratives. But when it comes to protecting ones own culture why should anyone be criticized? It's natural to want to do so. The desire to protect our culture is the main reason I don't agree with mass immigration into Australia of people from non-democratic, theocratic cultures who won't integrate. Some might want to call that racism. But it's not about race. It's about culture. In our democratic culture we can live as we chose and say, pretty much, whatever we want. We value that and want to preserve it. Nothing wrong with that.

Alas, certain elements of society now make free speech increasingly a problem in the west. As you say, many claim that any desire to reduce immigration, especially of Muslims, is racist. These are the same kinds of people who lay behind the Ivy League universities' retreat from free speech. Harvard scored zero out of a hundred! Of course, they have their rationalisations and excuses, but the criteria applied to all colleges, and all other colleges scored higher: https://universitybusiness.com/of-250-i ... ee-speech/

Meanwhile, it's still the case that, when the US catches a cold, Australia sneezes. So what happens over there, comes here to some extent.

Sad to see what high levels of Islamic migration has done to the UK, Sweden and Germany too. I always thought Angela Merkel was going to make life very hard for European citizens when she opened Europe up to refugees. It seemed impossible to cram millions more into Europe's already-overcrowded cities. I figured she must have known something that I didn't. Not so long I had great trust in academia.

It turns out that, while Merkel was exceedingly kind to the migrants, she was cruel to Europe's existing citizens, especially the poor who had to compete directly with the new arrivals for everything, and usually lost. The culture of a number of European countries has been damaged beyond repair and the societies are much less safe than before.

Apparently, Australia would currently be in recession, saved only by the migration surge - the same surge that is sending ever more Australians into homelessness. We are in the grip of a Ponzi scheme, and both sides of politics are in on it. Our demographics are so old that we need to bring in new workers, who will then get old and need new workers ...

Whether a culturally different (and sometimes hostile) workforce will want to work to pay the pensions to older Aussies is another matter.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, immigration is another of those wicked problems. Its worse in our big cities than down here in Tas. Melbourne and Sydney are already too big (which is why I left Sydney) and they are bringing in the wrong sort of immigrants. But when I suggest that we should only take in non-Muslims, I'm accused of racism and Islamophobia. But it's not about race. It's about culture. Would Muslim countries accept millions of non-Muslims flooding into their countries? Would they accept millions of people who insisted on freedom of and from religion, including millions of women who insisted on being educated and wearing what they wanted to wear instead of black bags? I don't think so. I'm fine with Europeans and non-Muslim Asians. But large scale immigration is going to have to stop sooner or later. I hope it's sooner. That would ease the housing crisis. And if we wish to preserve our culture, we, and a lot of other nations, are going to have to somehow get their fertility rates up to replacement level so that immigration is not needed. We'll also need to raise economic productivity to support the aging cohort until our population pyramids get back to a healthier shape.

[Lagayascienza]

On the subject of fertility rates, the way to keep people breeding like rabbits is to keep them (especially women) poor, ignorant and religious. Poverty ignorance and religion are why large parts of Africa and the Muslim world still have unsustainably high birth rates. They need to educate themselves and let go of religion so that, like us, they can stop breeding like rabbits and look after the people they already have. As they do that (if they ever do) we in the West need to get our fertility rates up a little to replacement level so that we don't need the Muslim world's excess population. We cannot be expected to keep our borders open at the risk of our own culture and social fabric.

There, I've said it. I can hear the accusations of racism already. I don't care.

[Sy Borg]

Yes, immigration is another of those wicked problems. Its worse in our big cities than down here in Tas. Melbourne and Sydney are already too big (which is why I left Sydney) and they are bringing in the wrong sort of immigrants. But when I suggest that we should only take in non-Muslims, I'm accused of racism and Islamophobia. But it's not about race. It's about culture. Would Muslim countries accept millions of non-Muslims flooding into their countries? Would they accept millions of people who insisted on freedom of and from religion, including millions of women who insisted on being educated and wearing what they wanted to wear instead of black bags? I don't think so. I'm fine with Europeans and non-Muslim Asians. But large scale immigration is going to have to stop sooner or later. I hope it's sooner. That would ease the housing crisis. And if we wish to preserve our culture, we, and a lot of other nations, are going to have to somehow get their fertility rates up to replacement level so that immigration is not needed. We'll also need to raise economic productivity to support the aging cohort until our population pyramids get back to a healthier shape.

Yes, there's an obvious double standard, but to point that out would be considered ignorant racist by the Harvard opinion-makers and the like. Of course the Arab nations would not accept many thousands of westerners openly showing contempt for their culture - because their culture is rich and they are the Oppressed while the culture of we Oppressors is garbage, infected by relative freedom of beliefs and speech, plus suffrage and queer acceptance.

We westerners are being taught by our educational institutions to hate ourselves and our culture, to ignore that which we do well and focus only on what we have done wrong. Ironically, their mindset has done more to diminish and damage the cultures of western nations than anything else.

[Lagayascienza]

I read the article about free speech at the US universities. In the West, we're shooting ourselves in the foot when we disallow ourselves to openly discuss concerns about immigration and fear accusations of racism if we dare to do so. It's postmodernism gone mad. Why do we have to accept that all cultures are equal? Muslim cultures don't accept that. The only reason some Middle Eastern Muslim countries are wealthy is because of oil. If it weren't for oil they'd all be economic basket cases like most of Muslim Africa where religion, ignorance and poverty are the norm. Instead of teaching them to hate their own culture, we should be teaching our young to respect and admire the achievements of Western culture and democracy and to make fair comparisons of it with to other cultures. Instead, our universities have been taken over by postmodernist who teach that it is wrong to make such comparisons. I must disagree.