Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You really think so?
It's not only the consumption rates, it is the fossil fuels used to do this that warm the atmosphere. All of this is acheivable, yes, but to do this, you need a moral renaissance where consumption and material well-being are not paramount.
Or you can do a transition to a green energy production system and recycle based circular economy. The shifting that is needed is from use and throw to use and reuse based production.
Those are prohibitately expensive, or so I've heard. Better to grow trees, and other natural CO2 sinks. However, special material interests are getting in the way of that. The problem is more moral and ethical than technological, though they should go hand-in-hand. The costs of green energy are going down, but we need the collective will to move to that from fossil fuels. The producers of fossil fuels will not magically go away. They are obscuring the truth. If more people don't investigate what the situation really is, change will be hard to come by, and for decades it has indeed been hard to come by. Fairly investigating the truth is a moral principle.
As I replied later, a transition to a green energy system does not come easily because the fossil fuel industries are obscuring the a situaion for their own gain. They have doing so for decades. That in itself a moral problem. Then too many people are letting themselves be fooled by the obscuration. If they fairly investigated the truth of the matter, that would be another avenue to solve our dilemma. Fairly investigating is another moral principle we need.
Yes, we can do all that, but what about the collective spirituality of the human race? I can - what's the word - affect only a few people around me. That worthwhile, don't get me wrong.
Now who is 'projecting'?
But it's just semantics, anyway. Actually, no. There is a strong philosophical argument to be made for an ethical imperative based on the 'objective' ideal that it is better to exist, than not to exist. And that ethical imperative is born out by the fact that everything that does exist, expends energy (effort) maintaining that state of being. "Morality" is just a human value assessment of behavior based on some ethical imperative.
Existence is based on exploring and fulfilling possibility, not on morality. This is not an issue of predation, where one possibility is usurped by another in the natural flow of explored possibility. It's an issue of unnatural destruction due to our itwisted inability to cognitively transcend the natural flow of explored possibilities.
The expansion of our "dumb animal" natures has long since become a malignancy to life as we know it. Clearly indicating this is not the direction of exploration and possibility that we should be pursuing.
We could render the Earth much like Mars. That is not beyond possibility if we continue to treat our only home like a dumb animal in pursuit of any and every advantage, regardless of consequence.
What you cannot foresee does not negate that possibility. But again, you are basing your position on a total extinction as a legitimate failure. Logic does not support that position.
You are probably right. This Hindu belief that everyone needs a Guru is as you say total nonsense.
Now who is 'projecting'?
Actually, no. There is a strong philosophical argument to be made for an ethical imperative based on the 'objective' ideal that it is better to exist, than not to exist. And that ethical imperative is born out by the fact that everything that does exist, expends energy (effort) maintaining that state of being. "Morality" is just a human value assessment of behavior based on some ethical imperative.
Existence is based on exploring and fulfilling possibility, not on morality. This is not an issue of predation, where one possibility is usurped by another in the natural flow of explored possibility. It's an issue of unnatural destruction due to our itwisted inability to cognitively transcend the natural flow of explored possibilities.
The expansion of our "dumb animal" natures has long since become a malignancy to life as we know it. Clearly indicating this is not the direction of exploration and possibility that we should be pursuing.
We could render the Earth much like Mars. That is not beyond possibility if we continue to treat our only home like a dumb animal in pursuit of any and every advantage, regardless of consequence.
What you cannot foresee does not negate that possibility. But again, you are basing your position on a total extinction as a legitimate failure. Logic does not support that position.
I conflate the terms in this instance because I am referring to the whole existential system. It's ALL about fulfilling possibilities. If it can happen it will happen. And if it cannot, it will not. Life could happen so it did. Cognition could happen so it did. But now we need to keep moving forward, because remaining just a cognitive animal isn't in keeping with the 'system', and we are becoming a destructive anomaly within it. We need to transcend into whatever possibilities are available to a highly cognitive life form. And so far we are not doing that. Certainly not quickly enough. We have the brains to be doing far better in this regard than we are. But for some reason we are having difficulty getting past our dumb animal selfishness. And it's becoming a real detriment to all life on Earth, including even our own.