No hard feelings. I am just trying to understand what leads you to think the way you do - partly because it might help my view point evolve, partly because it might help me to be more empathetic towards you and partly because it might help me understand how to better explain my point of view to you and others who think similarly.
MKI wrote:
QB: what seems to be your lack of awareness of the terrific costs to ecosystems, human culture and those who have been left out in increasing numbers from this fantastic life style.
First, I'm very aware, but we disagree, on the both facts and merits, regarding the "situation of our ecosystem". But I really don't want to turn this thread into that debate. Yes we disagree, but I don't disparage your morals or intelligence (although you & AKG decry mine). OK, I get it. Please let it go.
There is quite a bit of hard data about things like topsoil depletion, reduction in ocean fish, insect and large (wild) mammal biomass, reduction in forest area, increasing wealth gap, increasing deaths from opioid overdoses, etc. The environmental trends in particular are huge and point convincingly to a near term extinction crisis/ecosystem collapse. Are you aware of these trends? Can you explain them away?
MKI wrote:
Second, Re undeclared wars! working conditions! environment! and whatever else: sheese. What's next to pile on? I could think of a thousand areas of moral concerns I have but I sure don't think I have a right to demand (you or anyone else) share them or you "lack empathy" and are racked by "hubris" or ignorance. Look, people have different experiences, values, eduction, and brainpower. They should have the freedom to formulate their own opinions and lifestyles and suffer the rewards and consequences of doing so. This "you must think like me or you are a "_____" IMO prevents learning, growing, changing, and understanding. YMMV.
Forget moral concerns. A few simple questions to ask 1) "Are these problems big enough that they are reasonably likely to cause a reversal in this trend towards easier lives in the near future?" If so, then it's wise to consider or them. 2) "The way I and a minority of wealthy people on the planet live today is unprecedented in human history even as recently as a few decades ago. It is also unique even today when considering humanity as a whole. But there are significant consequences to this lifestyle both ecologically and to people in other parts of the world (and in my own country). After considering this, are the benefits of this life style it really worth it?" Or maybe you don't buy the part about significant consequences.
MKI wrote:
Third: The "gang up with friends" technique of discussion is not generally effective at persuading people. Certainly not empirical types like me.
I agree. It's unlikely to be effective. Please forgive our venting our frustration with what we perceive to be naivete or hubris on your part. Yes, there is value in being empirical. Where do you stand on allowing emotions to inform the thinking process? My take is that emotions developed over millions of years of evolution for a reason. When used in conjunction with intellect, they can help us determine what is important.
MKI wrote:
Sure we disagree. That's OK. I'm merely replying to be polite and let you know you have been read and heard. Yes I remain unconvinced of your positions. And yes I'm unperturbed that you (and others here) don't agree with my POV. I harbor no ill to those who disagree with me. Heck, I was having these same arguments way back in the 1980s; my position then was a fairly accurate prediction of today, and I believe it remains so. But only the future can tell; a good Black Swan or war could make mincemeat of anyone's predictions. I can assure you my POV is not hubris. It's caution and humility. Sadly, I don't see much of that here.
Yes, the future is unpredictable.
Perhaps your POV can be interpreted caution and humility if your goal is to best position yourself to maintain/increase ease and comfort in the near to mid-term. What if your goal was assess the most significant risks to the ongoing project of civilization as well as the comfort or even survival of our offspring and then act in a way most likely to mitigate these risks? I think that is the goal of many/most of us here at PP. It leads to very different actions than the first goal. Perhaps that is where the misunderstanding comes from.
It took 24 hrs to post…