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

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the stitch-up is not unlike the theistic stitch-up - if your faith in God brings poor results, then the problem is you don't believe well enough. If you mention that excessive Islamic immigration causes problems, then you are just racist - presumably because massive Muslim immigration never, ever causes problems (not to mention the issue of raw numbers of extra humans when there's no housing available for them).

You are right. We need to look at history with clear eyes. Every single human being alive today is the descendant of people who utterly destroyed their rivals - but not if you start history a few centuries ago. We are all descendants of the survivors, the winners. The descendants of the losers were never born. Even if a culture has suffered recent losses, at some point their ancestors gained their territory by either out-competing or invading others.

Not long ago, I posted the "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?" scene from the Life of Brian, which nicely sums up the childishness of criticism of western culture. Sure, western culture has many issues, not least the rise of bland corporatism that has decimated creativity and the arts, driven by the kind of neurotic self-hatred that is being taught to university students.

[Lagayascienza]

I agree. I used to feel enormous guilt about how the Australian indigenous peoples were dispossessed and almost wiped out. Yes, I'm sorry that they suffered and, to some extent, still suffer. But the fact is that European colonisation took place 250 years ago. It was not me who did the dispossessing. I wouldn't be born for over another century and a half, I wasn't there, so why should I feel guilt? I still believe it's right to try to close the gap that still exists between our indigenous people and those of European descent, but there's a limit to that, too. When do we wipe the slate? And how many struggles between different indigenous groups took place in Australia over the 50,000 years before Europeans arrived? Those who were here when Europeans arrived were the winners. But then they, too, became losers. That's sad. But, as you say, we need to take a broader view of history.

The days of European colonialism are over and we are left with the cultural landscape we have and we must make the best of it for all of us. How would indigenous Australians who wanted to retain their culture fare under a Muslim theocracy? Perhaps about as well as other infidels, women, gays etcetera who are oppressed and murdered under Islamic theocracies.

BTW, I loved the "What Have the Romans Ever Done for Us?" scene. So true. You can do that sort of stuff in comedy and get away with it. But just try to have a serious discussion on the benefits of our culture compared others today and the accusations of racism by the loony postmodernists would start flying thick and fast before you could say Monty Python.

[Sy Borg]

It's interesting to watch these vast forces pushing against each other.

It's understandable that some Aboriginals might not want what Europeans have to offer but the fact is that they could not compete. Further, if any of those tribes doing the complaining today had encountered neighbouring tribes as relatively weak to them as they were to Europeans, they would not have hesitated to have taken them over. That's how things have always worked in the world. We aim for greater gentility, but it's a work in progress.

Degrowth seems to be related to anti-western cultural cringe, yet wrapped in basic logic, because societies can't grow forever.

So, let's say the US decides to de-grow. Will China and India also de-grow, following the wisdom of America? Or might they double productivity to take advantage of their competition's weakness?

Degrowth would require one world government, and a draconian one to enforce its edicts.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, degrowth sounds like the solution to global environmental problems. And if we, as as a species, had any sense, all our nations would cap their populations at replacement levels and use only clean energy so that we could have continued economic growth without trashing the joint. But how likely is that? And who is going to enforce it? The UN? Yeah, right. The Arabs are not going to stop pumping and selling their oil. But, as you say, there are natural limits - societies cannot grow forever - only so many people can fit into the space available.

The west has enough people and its fertility rates are at, or slightly below, replacement level. Replacement level in the west and elsewhere would probably be economically and environmentally sustainable with the use of clean energy. However, I suspect population growth in religious Africa will continue unchecked for the foreseeable future in a tragedy of the commons, played out, sadly, against the backdrop of increased suffering due to a rapidly deteriorating climate and dwindling food production. Whilst that is happening, we in the West will try to nudge our fertility rates up to replacement level. That is doable. What is certainly not doable is migration to the West of a sizable proportion of the 4.2 billion projected for Africa by 2100 - 3 billion more than today. There is just no way we in the West could absorb hundreds of millions without destroying our own societies.

The world must get off fossil fuels so we can have clean economic growth. And Africa must stabilize its populations as we in the West and in much of Asia have done. I can't see any other way out of our population/economic/environmental dilemma. But maybe a miracle will happen.

[Lagayascienza]

That should have been "trilemma". It's a three horned problem of population growth, the desire for continued economic growth, and environmental problems cause by the energy sources we use to fuel population and economic growth.

[Pattern-chaser]

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

I think the urgency is such that we must all accept, quite quickly, that we will all pay ... whatever it costs, and whatever it takes. We have no choice. If we don't do it for ourselves, the environmental situation we have created and caused will do it for us, and then it will be much worse for us. But I agree with you, we won't act until it's far too late, and the cost to us will be greater than it could have been. Much greater.

All IMO, of course. But it seems so very *obvious* to me...

[Sy Borg]

Yes, degrowth sounds like the solution to global environmental problems. And if we, as as a species, had any sense, all our nations would cap their populations at replacement levels and use only clean energy so that we could have continued economic growth without trashing the joint. But how likely is that? And who is going to enforce it? The UN? Yeah, right. The Arabs are not going to stop pumping and selling their oil. But, as you say, there are natural limits - societies cannot grow forever - only so many people can fit into the space available.

The west has enough people and its fertility rates are at, or slightly below, replacement level. Replacement level in the west and elsewhere would probably be economically and environmentally sustainable with the use of clean energy. However, I suspect population growth in religious Africa will continue unchecked for the foreseeable future in a tragedy of the commons, played out, sadly, against the backdrop of increased suffering due to a rapidly deteriorating climate and dwindling food production. Whilst that is happening, we in the West will try to nudge our fertility rates up to replacement level. That is doable. What is certainly not doable is migration to the West of a sizable proportion of the 4.2 billion projected for Africa by 2100 - 3 billion more than today. There is just no way we in the West could absorb hundreds of millions without destroying our own societies.

The world must get off fossil fuels so we can have clean economic growth. And Africa must stabilize its populations as we in the West and in much of Asia have done. I can't see any other way out of our population/economic/environmental dilemma. But maybe a miracle will happen.

Alas, In Australia, we will need to rely on fossil fuels for a long time. Look at the chart in this article:

https://www.energy.gov.au/energy-data/a ... onsumption

The US is far ahead of us, which is just as well, given their level of influence:

https://energytransition.nema.org/baseload-generation/

China is also well ahead, although I doubt there's much potential to expand hydroelectric there, given that their river systems are already unsustainably utilised:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Pro ... _352422602

India too, are taking strides. Their need to reduce polluting technologies is even more urgent than China's:

https://www.eia.gov/international/analysis/country/IND

We can only hope there isn't a hot war because that will make all of these issues far worse.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, it's not going to be easy. According to energy . gov . au…, in 2022, 32% of Australia’s total electricity generation was from renewable energy sources, including solar (14%), wind (11%) and hydro (6%). However, that electricity generated from renewables accounted for only 9% of total energy consumption. With increased renewable generation and storage capacity, upgrades to the grid, and the increased uptake of EVs and other measures, this can certainly be increased. However, we have work to do if we are to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Whether the Australian government's current path to net zero can get us there by 2050 remains to be seen. However, it does seem possible.

If not, it may be necessary for us (and other countries) to supplement wind, solar etcetera with nuclear. It is a clean and safe form of baseload power generation and small modular generators should make it economically viable.

Globally, it is certainly physically possible to achieve net zero mid-century, but it will be hard to overcome the political power of the fossil fuel energy companies who will be lobbying for the continuation of coal mining and oil extraction. I think that will be the biggest hurdle. It's going to take political will. And as you say, if there is a hot war, then all bets are off.