What do you think the solution is when saving humanity?

a reply to: Elementalist

Unfortunately, few people have the ability to see flaws in themselves, and how do you identify a flaw in another?

What one person see as beauty another may find perverse.

Our individual lives, dreams and desires leave us poorly equipped to make decisions for all Earthlings and for the microscopic, encapsulated, ecologically diverse, sphere we call home.

I think the only way the human race will truly make it over the long haul, is to get out there in the stars, and leave this mudball and spread to other mudballs.

Just as previous explorers left, and experimented with new governments, etc., we too must repeat this practice, though now on other worlds vs. new continents.

Otherwise, nowhere else to go but a complete police state once resources are way too finite to support the masses.

The humans of humanity must work to save themselves. Nothing else will save them, according to evolution. In the modern world, work most nearly means thinking .

Actually, humanity is not in danger in any way. The super rich are humans and given our level of technology, nothing short of mass suicidal insanity could cause the extinction of humanity.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: wasaka

Your post redefines morality a bit, its not a religious thing.
www.diffen.com...
My definition would be that ethics are external and define boundaries, morals are internal, and inspire direction.

"Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong."

Yes, one's own principle regard right and wrong are largely
based on religious teaching and the consensus reality of
society and large (i.e., social conditioning).

Beliefs effect behavior, that is true.

The question is where these believes
come from.... if they are memes of our
social conditioning then these so-called
"principles" may not be ethical.

A lot of religious beliefs which shape
behavior are arrived at second hand
and fall short of being principles of
the individual themselves.

What humanity need most is to bring
a full stop to valuing the valueless, and
in this regard we only change the world
by changing ourselves. Lead by example.
This is an individual principle, not some
moral judgement about other people.

Morality, like money, is a false authority.

a reply to: wasaka

You're still using the word different than I would, so its hard to fully argue or agree with what you are saying. Example usage:

The atheist scientist ruled out the experiment because it would cross ethical boundaries, but worked hard to find another way to prove the efficacy of the medication, anticipating not just the recognition, but also moral achievement of helping the millions suffering with the condition.

originally posted by: tridentblue
a reply to: wasaka

You're still using the word different than I would, so its hard to fully argue or agree with what you are saying. Example usage:

The atheist scientist ruled out the experiment because it would cross ethical boundaries, but worked hard to find another way to prove the efficacy of the medication, anticipating not just the recognition, but also moral achievement of helping the millions suffering with the condition.

Yes, this is common usage.

However, I point out that "beliefs" lead to Beliefism.

Beliefism does not question itself, rather it is held with conviction.

Convictions (strongly held moral beliefs) are dangerous because
they leave out "critical thinking" and ethical considerations and
rely on emotion, religious instruction, and peer pressure.

Beliefs we hold can be based on:
A) our programming, or
B) our experience

The former is called "morality" and later is ethical.
The former is based on external opinions (false authority)
and the later is based on common sense and empathy.

Sometimes the answers are put in a show, and for example, smallville. I really didn't watch it, one of the kids had it on years ago and may have seen a scene or two, but thought it was nonsense. Now I'm watching it with my son, and the level of inner Michael, the metaphors, its pretty good.

So, if you want to start to become a humble hero, it starts at home in your communities, finding solutions in groups and forgiving the bad guys, seeing good in others and trying to make a difference.

Unfortunately, see most people as enablers, partners in crime with the elite. Egypt with its second revolution told me that if a majority of people simply refuse a system, it can't be imposed. So in order for this to continue, there has to be a big payoff. The average person must really think highly of themselves and think all their hard work earned them a home and food in the fridge, and they must think the majority of 7 billion people left out in the cold or without resources are so evil, though they've never harmed them, that they deserve hell on earth. Its ego patting themselves on the back.

Everyone is you. If you're in their shoes, 90% chance you'd turn out the same.

That was something Anita Morjani shared from her NDE and she was cured of late stage cancer, she actually died of cancer. She said, you don't forgive anyone, you don't need to. When you understand them, and all they went through, there is no need for forgiveness, instead choose understanding and compassion. Getting, there but for the grace of God go I.

We're letting everyone down around us, when we don't step up to the plate, but at the same time it takes more people, this universe is so tired of martyrs.

a reply to: wasaka

I kinda see your philosophy here, and sofaras you are saying reason and empathy should be uppermost I agree. I was arguing that we need scientists and informed people to play a more formative role. Morality and belief are tough words. With the first, I can warn you that some new atheist Dawkins fans will rip you a new one if you say "Atheists have no morals", which follows from that definition of morality as programming or belief driven. "Belief" itself has two meanings, it can denote faith based belief, which is can be unshakeable and held, or it can denote uncertainty about something. "I believe it will be a nice day". The latter is connected to my definition of morality: The scientist in my example may not know that curing the disease is the best thing for the world, but still feel a draw to do so, to be the sort of person who does that thing. That's her moral conviction, and its okay. Its good. She should share it with the world.

In terms of the Rivero video you posted, I used to love his site, but to me it just underscores the importance of having beliefs (definition 2), as a way to model your own uncertainty about things. Knowing the interest groups around global warming, a wise person has uncertainty about it. I now strongly believe its real though, based on the BS arguments and huge money (oil companies) of people who say its fake. AGW predicts something like a 3C degree rise in average temperature by 2100. The minute I see you arguing against that prediction with a single snowy day is the moment I know you don't understand probability and averages, and should start recognizing how much you believe vs how much you know.

We could just let the radioactivity and pollution keep on making us less fertile, and let the heat do it's thing and wipe out coastal areas and let the changing water availability/rainfall do the rest... within two generations we'll be down to (the new) sustainable levels without leaving Earth... by not doing a thing differently... it's the several billion dead that's the bummer.

Unless we stop churning out the mess, now, reality says many will die. Reality also says it may be too late for many, too.

So that means everyone investing in alternative energy and cleaner manufacturing techniques and smarter use of agriculture and fisheries, like organized rotating zones, and smarter urban planning/architecture/transport.. .we have all the answers, already, we just don't have the will to implement them.

Reality can be unpleasant.

originally posted by: Gazrok
I think the only way the human race will truly make it over the long haul, is to get out there in the stars, and leave this mudball and spread to other mudballs.

Just as previous explorers left, and experimented with new governments, etc., we too must repeat this practice, though now on other worlds vs. new continents.

Otherwise, nowhere else to go but a complete police state once resources are way too finite to support the masses.

Stephen Hawkings seems to agree with you. He gives us less than 1000 years.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Evacuate Earth aims for 75 years. 25 years is not a great leap.
youtu.be...

Crazy thing is you can almost see a connection. You wouldn't be a true ATSer if you couldn't.

a reply to: Ghost147

Well, if the past couple years are any indicator, we're going to need a little more than technology to ensure that we are still here.

First off, we need to start working with Mother Nature - Try as much as possible to stop unnecessary cutting down of trees, killing wildlife, and more cleanup in areas where there is a market for food (such as the oceans).

Second, we need to find a way to make energy without basing it off oil, or anything that could terminate us in a second. Mining and drilling for oil are very harmful for the environment (just as the fumes from our cars are). I'd love to see in 100 years that we found a way to create a "living battery", where bacteria or algae consume something like plastic to create electricity.

Third, we need to have empathy for each other - I'd be willing to bet that in 100 years, if we don't start to accept each other, then we will rip each other to pieces.

Fourth, we shouldn't be so greedy. For example, if you create a drug that cures cancer 100%, you should make sure others are aware so that more people are helped. If you find a way to allow people to live longer, it shouldn't just be the rich that get it, but the poor as well.

Finally - the only way that we will probably survive the next 100 years is by looking at other planets. Here on earth, it might not seem like it, but we do not have infinite resources. Eventually, we will get to a point where earth will not be able to sustain us, and we will either need to bring more resources to us (IE: Asteroids or other smaller bodies), or venture out to other bodies (Mars, the Moon, Titan). Not only does this give us more space, but it increases the chances that we will survive. To me, it's a bit of a scary thought that all it would take is a big enough rock to hit us, and we wouldn't exist the next week.

-foss

Life is beyond fixing, you came here to learn and possibly will reincarnate again and again until you become free.
Likely mankind will have a near extinction event that is already in in it's early stages so do what you can to make it less drastic, get back to the land, become part of a caring community of like minded souls. Move to where there is lots of clean water and deep forests and good employment.

you a reply to: Ghost147

A total cleansing!

a reply to: wasaka

Morality is not just a religious code. morality is something that defines how you handle life situation's Can an atheist or agnostic person be morally grounded? yeah.

Morality is something that comes from the heart and is set by a mindset.

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: wasaka

Morality is not just a religious code. morality is something that defines how you handle life situation's Can an atheist or agnostic person be morally grounded? yeah.

Morality is something that comes from the heart and is set by a mindset.

When you say it comes "from the heart," that tells me it is based on emotion. I'm not say emotions are bad, but they are often unduely influenced by family, friends, and peers. These influence are OUTSIDE the individual, and that which is an EXTERNAL influence is a false authority. True moral principle (be ethical) come from WITHIN.

Atheist and agnostics can believe things based on emotion (just like religious people) and they can uphold a standard of morality which merely repeats the beliefs of other people. This is called social conditioning, and that is what morality really is... it is our programming.... the believes we hold (with emotion) without critical thinking.

Ethics = logic (from WITHIN the individual)
Morality = emotion (from Outside the individual)

Stephen Hawkings seems to agree with you. He gives us less than 1000 years

I'll gladly accept his esteemed company in agreement.

It's really the only logical answer though. We are on a planet with finite resources, yet we keep expanding our population exponentially. At some point, we're going to reach a level where demand outstrips the resources of the planet.

There are actually only two solutions.

1) Purge the populace (reduce the population drastically, thereby increasing the population to resources ratio)

or

2) Go to other planets (which reduces the population here, and increases the available resources to both populations)


2 is a much more palatable option, don't you think?

a reply to: Ghost147

Greed is the problem, always has been. Whether we are talking about religion, food, wealth, whatever, it is ultimately greed that provides us with our downfall. Therefore we will never solve our problems as a species unless we solve our inherent problem with greed.

Space? Much as i would love to, the same problems will arise wherever we colonise. Someday, the greed will kick in in someone will start the long road to ruin for us all. Again......

Now before anyone starts, i love our species. We are capable of amazing acts in every possible sphere of life...we just need to address our weaknesses.

a reply to: Flavian

I believe greed is the source as well. More specifically, how we feel we need to satisfy this impulse to the highest degree. And that is simply, having more fiat currency than others.

I see a different way to satisfy this, with a strong focus on quality of life pursuits and real world values. To me, it seems completely straightforward, but it is completely removed from the cultural story that has been subconsciously written for millenia.

It's just a shift from correlating a meaningless item to real world values because it can purchase them, to a system that directly addresses the best way to pursue individual quality of life while considering the real world. Basically, iI believe we can satisfy this urge in ways that actually lead to aa higher quality of life for nearly everyone instead of aa select few.

II also have to agree about colonizing other planets. Humans should not be permitted to do so until we have our own house in order with aa foundation that can be laid on the new world without devolving into the SSDD that currently plagues us

a reply to: wasaka

can you do a thread about the difference between Ethics and morality I want to discuss more but it is kind of off topic here

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: wasaka

can you do a thread about the difference between Ethics and morality I want to discuss more but it is kind of off topic here

www.abovetopsecret.com...