>The Nonidentity Problem

The nonidentity problem focuses on the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all. If a person’s existence is unavoidably flawed, then the agent’s only alternatives to bringing that person into the flawed existence are to bring no one into existence at all or to bring a different person – a nonidentical but better off person – into existence in place of the person whose existence is flawed. If the existence is worth having and no one else’s interests are at stake, it is unclear on what ground morality would insist that the choice to bring the one person into the flawed existence is morally wrong. And yet at the same time – as we shall see – it seems that in some cases that choice clearly is morally wrong. The nonidentity problem is the problem of resolving this apparent paradox.<

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonidentity-problem/

Here’s a link to a quiz to find out where you stand on the non-identity problem:

https://oxfordxpsy.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_1BoLVkVHqgSP6DP

My result (according to them):

>You believe in the no-difference view!

As far as you’re concerned, it really doesn’t matter whether our actions do good by helping people who will already exist in the future, or by changing who exists in the future for the better. You think that what matters is how good the lives of future people are, without consideration of who those people are.<

I don’t fully agree with that summary of my position :)

fairly much half of ‘reality’ in the moral field can be resolved to variously territorialness for analysis.

meaning morality is largely a territorial projection

paradoxically the same morality can deny the existence of the territorial nature of it, and often does

The article that introduces the quiz:

Which lives matter most?

Thinking about children who are not yet born confronts us with the question of our ethical obligations to future people

https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-take-ethical-account-of-people-who-do-not-yet-exist

Bubblecar said:

The article that introduces the quiz:

Which lives matter most?

Thinking about children who are not yet born confronts us with the question of our ethical obligations to future people

https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-take-ethical-account-of-people-who-do-not-yet-exist

It would be nice to leave them with a livable world but if you can’t, then don’t have children. However, people are rarely so thoughtful, as they cannot resist the sweet cuddly puppy, thinking little of the problems of when it grows up. We are basically very selfish and generally do things because it satisfies an immediate emotional need. Ethics are seldom involved.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

The article that introduces the quiz:

Which lives matter most?

Thinking about children who are not yet born confronts us with the question of our ethical obligations to future people

https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-take-ethical-account-of-people-who-do-not-yet-exist

It would be nice to leave them with a livable world but if you can’t, then don’t have children. However, people are rarely so thoughtful, as they cannot resist the sweet cuddly puppy, thinking little of the problems of when it grows up. We are basically very selfish and generally do things because it satisfies an immediate emotional need. Ethics are seldom involved.

The more educated people do tend to have less or no children. Seems a shame really that the very intelligent, breed less.

Bubblecar said:

The article that introduces the quiz:

Which lives matter most?

Thinking about children who are not yet born confronts us with the question of our ethical obligations to future people

https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-take-ethical-account-of-people-who-do-not-yet-exist

I cover that in Good Scientist Comic Number 228. We’re not up to that yet, so I’ll expand.

Morality has to be time-limited and size-limited.

Time-limited because I can’t claim that “the Port Arthur massacre is moral because it led to tighter gun controls that will save the lives of future generations.”

Size-limited because I can’t claim that “murdering someone on an anthill is moral because it brings happiness to thousands of ants.”

>We are basically very selfish and generally do things because it satisfies an immediate emotional need

No hiding the generalization in that sentence.

transition said:

>We are basically very selfish and generally do things because it satisfies an immediate emotional need

No hiding the generalization in that sentence.

However, generally what I have said is true. We look down on animals that crap in their own nest, but conveniently overlook the fact that we do a lot more of it. Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

>However, generally what I have said is true. We look down on animals that crap in their own nest, but conveniently overlook the fact that we do a lot more of it. Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.”

Should I ignore the prolific we thing above? (i’m asking myself, you’ll complicate things if you answer) .

I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

> I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

Yes. Consider different species. Does a human being have any more right to life and happiness than a wheat plant? Yes. A mosquito? Again yes. An elephant? Now we’re starting to get into more difficult moral territory.

mollwollfumble said:

> I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

Yes. Consider different species. Does a human being have any more right to life and happiness than a wheat plant? Yes. A mosquito? Again yes. An elephant? Now we’re starting to get into more difficult moral territory.

The wheat plant has manipulated us into clearing the forests for it.

The very first “question” I see says:

“If she becomes pregnant now, she will conceive a child”

Aren’t “becoming pregnant” and “conceiving” essentially the same thing?

furious said:

The very first “question” I see says:

“If she becomes pregnant now, she will conceive a child”

Aren’t “becoming pregnant” and “conceiving” essentially the same thing?

If she conceives now she will become pregnant?

furious said:

The very first “question” I see says:

“If she becomes pregnant now, she will conceive a child”

Aren’t “becoming pregnant” and “conceiving” essentially the same thing?

That’s being a bit picky, it’s not immaculate.

Bubblecar said:

My result (according to them):

>You believe in the no-difference view!

As far as you’re concerned, it really doesn’t matter whether our actions do good by helping people who will already exist in the future, or by changing who exists in the future for the better. You think that what matters is how good the lives of future people are, without consideration of who those people are.<

I don’t fully agree with that summary of my position :)

Same here and same here.

It’s an interesting problem, and I think their summary is way over simplistic.

Never any good:

…
If you had been a practical man,
You would have been forewarned.
You would have seen that it never could work,
And I would have never been born.
…

Martin Simpson

mollwollfumble said:

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

Paragraphs 1-3: Agree (strongly agree in fact).

Paragraph 4: Disagree, because the encapsulation of the policy as “do no harm” has to be taken in context. “Act to minimize harm, taking due account of risks and unpredictable consequences”, would state the policy better, but with less impact.

Peak Warming Man said:

furious said:

The very first “question” I see says:

“If she becomes pregnant now, she will conceive a child”

Aren’t “becoming pregnant” and “conceiving” essentially the same thing?

That’s being a bit picky, it’s not immaculate.

I agree with the “not”, but I suspect you meant “very rarely”.

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

Cymek said:

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

I came from a very small Catholic family, just 4 kids.
Most Catholic families were double digits back then.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

I came from a very small Catholic family, just 4 kids.
Most Catholic families were double digits back then.

Do they still encourage large families, I know the Mormons do with most have 5 children or more and an almost unsaid guilt for not doing this.

Cymek said:

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

In the short to medium term, genes interact with memes to ensure that the meme/gene combination that reproduces and survives in the greatest numbers, will have the greatest numbers.

How that works out in the long term remains to be seen.

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

I came from a very small Catholic family, just 4 kids.
Most Catholic families were double digits back then.

Do they still encourage large families, I know the Mormons do with most have 5 children or more and an almost unsaid guilt for not doing this.

Apparently Mediterranean Catholic countries now have a very low birth rate, so presumably they have found some way of having sex without having babies that does not involve contraception.

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

It’s interesting to note that many religions encourage having large families when morally its probably irresponsible as the world then has to cope with providing for them for 80 plus years.

I came from a very small Catholic family, just 4 kids.
Most Catholic families were double digits back then.

Do they still encourage large families, I know the Mormons do with most have 5 children or more and an almost unsaid guilt for not doing this.

I don’t think they bother about family size anymore.

Peak Warming Man said:

Cymek said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I came from a very small Catholic family, just 4 kids.
Most Catholic families were double digits back then.

Do they still encourage large families, I know the Mormons do with most have 5 children or more and an almost unsaid guilt for not doing this.

I don’t think they bother about family size anymore.

My wife is a Mormon and most of the members of her church have five or more kids and its encouraged to have lots of them as family is all important, which is fine and dandy if you have a loving family. I said to her in this day and age with our planet already stressed to cope with the population it has isn’t this irresponsible especially in a first world nation were said kids would consume large amounts of resources.

mollwollfumble said:

> I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

Yes. Consider different species. Does a human being have any more right to life and happiness than a wheat plant? Yes. A mosquito? Again yes. An elephant? Now we’re starting to get into more difficult moral territory.

don’t mind me, I don’t identify as human. It’s a trap

i’m mammal, and primate.

transition said:

>However, generally what I have said is true. We look down on animals that crap in their own nest, but conveniently overlook the fact that we do a lot more of it. Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.”

Should I ignore the prolific we thing above? (i’m asking myself, you’ll complicate things if you answer) .

I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

Well trans, how much of your property have you exclusively set aside for the indigenous flora and fauna?

mollwollfumble said:

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

Do you realise how much we and that includes you, have fucked up this planet?

In their summary of my position, I’m wary of this phrase:

people who will already exist in the future

…unless they mean people who have already been conceived but have not yet been born.

Obviously, before “people” have even been conceived, they don’t exist – they’re imaginary.

If we propose two categories:

A) The people who will actually exist in the future
B) Imaginary people who will never exist

…I’d say the only “people” we need worry about are those in A).

And as a society we have an obligation to do what we can to help ensure those people have a good chance of living healthy and happy lives.

Enacting this obligation will of course influence the nature of those future people and the conditions in which they live.

But that’s the whole point of “helping ensure they have a good chance of living healthy and happy lives”.

But beneficial human agency, enacted before the conception of future people, doesn’t mean there’s some actual population of “other people” who now won’t exist in the future.

Before conception, all hypothetical people are imaginary, and those that are never conceived will always belong in category B), above.

The people who will exist in the future remain the only people who will exist in the future :)

>Well trans, how much of your property have you exclusively set aside for the indigenous flora and fauna?

Sounds a bit personal.

I didn’t originate in Australia (think philogeny).

My ancestors did a long trip, probably originated from the african savanna (swung out of the trees before that).

Should I have a special fondness of indigenous flora and fauna?

mollwollfumble said:

> I guess I should join in the generalizations about the species. My moral bulb’s looking to expand its territory.

Yes. Consider different species. Does a human being have any more right to life and happiness than a wheat plant? Yes. A mosquito? Again yes. An elephant? Now we’re starting to get into more difficult moral territory.

Considering the inter-relatedness of organisms on this plant, and again that includes you, just how much can you dismiss before it directly impacts on yourself?

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

Do you realise how much we and that includes you, have fucked up this planet?

Yeah its pretty disgraceful, one day feel like its a losing battle if you do care as those in power for the most part don’t care, however perhaps we have finally woken up as a specie and decided to stop wrecking everything and try to repair the damage

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

Do you realise how much we and that includes you, have fucked up this planet?

I might add that selfishness is not about taking the last cake on the plate! It is about how we take what we want from the environment with little or no thought about the consequence to other things that use it to live. If we can make a dollar from it, we just take it.

And Moll and The Rev, as you consume from what is provided by the environment, even if you don’t destroy it yourselves, others do it for you and the money you are willing to pay for it. All your smart gadgets will not on their own, keep you alive.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Why do we destroy so much? Because we are greedy and will do virtually anything to make money and improve our social standing. Yes we are selfish and extremely so.

You may be. But not me. I don’t believe that you are either.

Everybody has there own moral system that they stick to, and the only members of the human race that are “selfish and extremely so” are known as sociopaths/psychopaths. These make up somewhere between 0.5% and 2.5% of the general population.

Destruction for its own sake is inefficient and counterproductive. Which is why nobody is intentionally purely destructive.

But consider a surgeon. A “do no harm” morality would eliminate surgery because then no surgeon would be permitted to make the first cut. Even worse, a “do no harm” morality is exactly the same as a “do nothing” morality, which is an exceptionally bad moral system. It would lead to a lack of maintenance, maintenance is needed to hold back entropy.

Do you realise how much we and that includes you, have fucked up this planet?

I might add that selfishness is not about taking the last cake on the plate! It is about how we take what we want from the environment with little or no thought about the consequence to other things that use it to live. If we can make a dollar from it, we just take it.

And Moll and The Rev, as you consume from what is provided by the environment, even if you don’t destroy it yourselves, others do it for you and the money you are willing to pay for it. All your smart gadgets will not on their own, keep you alive.

I like technology but at a consumer level its created to be almost throw away when the next model comes out.

>Obviously, before “people” have even been conceived, they don’t exist – they’re imaginary.

part of reality, replicators anticipating replicators

transition said:

>Well trans, how much of your property have you exclusively set aside for the indigenous flora and fauna?

Sounds a bit personal.

I didn’t originate in Australia (think philogeny).

My ancestors did a long trip, probably originated from the african savanna (swung out of the trees before that).

Should I have a special fondness of indigenous flora and fauna?

In other words you left nothing, and why? Because you can make more money from the property when cleared, and why? So you can lead a more comfortable life! Compared to the organisms that once lived on your property, you are greedy and self-centered.

>In other words you left nothing, and why? Because you can make more money from the property when cleared, and why? So you can lead a more comfortable life! Compared to the organisms that once lived on your property, you are greedy and self-centered.

i’m not talking out of my anus

transition said:

>In other words you left nothing, and why? Because you can make more money from the property when cleared, and why? So you can lead a more comfortable life! Compared to the organisms that once lived on your property, you are greedy and self-centered.

i’m not talking out of my anus

No, you are simply greedy and self-centered. Sorry if I have pricked you conscience, or opened your eyes to how WE treat this planet and how WE are all to blame in one way or another.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>In other words you left nothing, and why? Because you can make more money from the property when cleared, and why? So you can lead a more comfortable life! Compared to the organisms that once lived on your property, you are greedy and self-centered.

i’m not talking out of my anus

No, you are simply greedy and self-centered. Sorry if I have pricked you conscience, or opened your eyes to how WE treat this planet and how WE are all to blame in one way or another.

yes, of course you’re right.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>In other words you left nothing, and why? Because you can make more money from the property when cleared, and why? So you can lead a more comfortable life! Compared to the organisms that once lived on your property, you are greedy and self-centered.

i’m not talking out of my anus

No, you are simply greedy and self-centered. Sorry if I have pricked you conscience, or opened your eyes to how WE treat this planet and how WE are all to blame in one way or another.

yes, of course you’re right.

Thank you.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

No, you are simply greedy and self-centered. Sorry if I have pricked you conscience, or opened your eyes to how WE treat this planet and how WE are all to blame in one way or another.

yes, of course you’re right.

Thank you.

What’s not selfish though
Our block in suburbia was cleared, since then we’ve planted around 40 trees (mostly fruit trees) planted a vegetable garden that often runs off rain water, have various pets that are treated well and recycle all green waste. I don’t like the way the human race treats the planet and personally try to minimise my impact but still actually need to live. It seems its very hard to eat, consume or buy anything anymore that isn’t exploiting someone/thing

• What’s not selfish though

All organisms are selfish…

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

yes, of course you’re right.

Thank you.

What’s not selfish though
Our block in suburbia was cleared, since then we’ve planted around 40 trees (mostly fruit trees) planted a vegetable garden that often runs off rain water, have various pets that are treated well and recycle all green waste. I don’t like the way the human race treats the planet and personally try to minimise my impact but still actually need to live. It seems its very hard to eat, consume or buy anything anymore that isn’t exploiting someone/thing

How do you think the world’s human population has reached its current level? Simply by exploiting the environment! Why is the state of the planet tottering on the edge? Because we have been too successful in exploiting the planet! We eat, our pets eat, we all need clothes, shelter and all the things inside, and don’t forget the car and all the infrastructure needed to make our lives more comfortable! And where does that mainly come from? That’s right, the environment! We ALL impact on the environment, even vegans.

furious said:

• What’s not selfish though

All organisms are selfish…

If we believe ourselves, we are capable of reason and should be able to see through that crude level of selfishness for the greater good. But alas it would seem we do not posses that level of intelligence.

>That’s right, the environment!

whoever came up with the word environment, that means or tends to exclude internal environments, made a worse contribution than Dickens did to the vocabulary of children expressing their boredom.

all that lurching savantism out there now looking for a home.

furious said:

• What’s not selfish though

All organisms are selfish…

and some are shellfish.

Hitler always thought about how wonderful the thousand year reich would be for unborn generations. So you couldn’t call him selfish. :-(

Morality has to be time-limited.

mollwollfumble said:

Hitler always thought about how wonderful the thousand year reich would be for unborn generations. So you couldn’t call him selfish. :-(

Morality has to be time-limited.

I was talking about our species, not an individual. If we want something in the environment, we will destroy it simply to get what we want, without any consideration for the organisms currently living there. We sacrifice the lives of all other life forms, simply so we can have a more comfortable life, therefore in this regard we are extremely selfish and self-serving, This attitude would not be a major problem if our population was small, but it is not only large, it is extremely large and so this attitude and continual destruction is literally destroying the capability for not only us, but most other organisms to survive.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hitler always thought about how wonderful the thousand year reich would be for unborn generations. So you couldn’t call him selfish. :-(

Morality has to be time-limited.

I was talking about our species, not an individual. If we want something in the environment, we will destroy it simply to get what we want, without any consideration for the organisms currently living there. We sacrifice the lives of all other life forms, simply so we can have a more comfortable life, therefore in this regard we are extremely selfish and self-serving, This attitude would not be a major problem if our population was small, but it is not only large, it is extremely large and so this attitude and continual destruction is literally destroying the capability for not only us, but most other organisms to survive.

You’re mad.

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

Hitler always thought about how wonderful the thousand year reich would be for unborn generations. So you couldn’t call him selfish. :-(

Morality has to be time-limited.

I was talking about our species, not an individual. If we want something in the environment, we will destroy it simply to get what we want, without any consideration for the organisms currently living there. We sacrifice the lives of all other life forms, simply so we can have a more comfortable life, therefore in this regard we are extremely selfish and self-serving, This attitude would not be a major problem if our population was small, but it is not only large, it is extremely large and so this attitude and continual destruction is literally destroying the capability for not only us, but most other organisms to survive.

You’re mad.

Maybe for wanting something better. Perhaps you are too self-obsessed to see things as they are.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

I was talking about our species, not an individual. If we want something in the environment, we will destroy it simply to get what we want, without any consideration for the organisms currently living there. We sacrifice the lives of all other life forms, simply so we can have a more comfortable life, therefore in this regard we are extremely selfish and self-serving, This attitude would not be a major problem if our population was small, but it is not only large, it is extremely large and so this attitude and continual destruction is literally destroying the capability for not only us, but most other organisms to survive.

You’re mad.

Maybe for wanting something better. Perhaps you are too self-obsessed to see things as they are.

Personally I think this is the make or break century for humanity, wipe ourselves out or grow up.
Our technology is outstripping our morality and maturity to not miss use it.

Cymek said:

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

You’re mad.

Maybe for wanting something better. Perhaps you are too self-obsessed to see things as they are.

Personally I think this is the make or break century for humanity, wipe ourselves out or grow up.
Our technology is outstripping our morality and maturity to not miss use it.

It is, but as a species we do not work together very well. We disagree every aspect of how things should be done. We have divided our world into countries, and within them, states and many other divisions, all trying to stay ahead of the other for fear of falling behind. Trying to co-ordinate something, anything, that might work for us as a species is almost impossible. Still, we’ve got to try as the alternative doesn’t look too good at all.

not to be forgetting humans have done very well – are doing very well – but don’t let me spoil the party with a little optimism

transition said:

not to be forgetting humans have done very well – are doing very well – but don’t let me spoil the party with a little optimism

For sure we have a lot to be proud of and when things get bad its when people shine or fall

transition said:

not to be forgetting humans have done very well – are doing very well – but don’t let me spoil the party with a little optimism

That is true, but at the expense of everything else on this planet. We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

not to be forgetting humans have done very well – are doing very well – but don’t let me spoil the party with a little optimism

That is true, but at the expense of everything else on this planet. We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

did I detect any optimism in that?

>We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

I can maintain a lot of contradiction, but somewhere you are going to have resolve that humans are (a big) part of the environment.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

not to be forgetting humans have done very well – are doing very well – but don’t let me spoil the party with a little optimism

That is true, but at the expense of everything else on this planet. We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

did I detect any optimism in that?

We are not talking about optimism, we are talking about facts. The way we are heading, the only thing you might have left would be optimism, but nothing will come of it.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

That is true, but at the expense of everything else on this planet. We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

did I detect any optimism in that?

We are not talking about optimism, we are talking about facts. The way we are heading, the only thing you might have left would be optimism, but nothing will come of it.

well, enthusiasm for helpful, practical facts then.

you did that we thing there again too.

transition said:

>We don’t pay for things, the environment does.

I can maintain a lot of contradiction, but somewhere you are going to have resolve that humans are (a big) part of the environment.

That it right we are part of the environment and to survive we use the resources of the environment, of which now our footprint far exceeds its ability to supply. We are living off the future and to put it simply we shall go broke.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

did I detect any optimism in that?

We are not talking about optimism, we are talking about facts. The way we are heading, the only thing you might have left would be optimism, but nothing will come of it.

well, enthusiasm for helpful, practical facts then.

you did that we thing there again too.

I use WE, because what WE are doing is affecting EVERYONE.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

We are not talking about optimism, we are talking about facts. The way we are heading, the only thing you might have left would be optimism, but nothing will come of it.

well, enthusiasm for helpful, practical facts then.

you did that we thing there again too.

I use WE, because what WE are doing is affecting EVERYONE.

glad you cleared that up, I thought I might have been confused.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

well, enthusiasm for helpful, practical facts then.

you did that we thing there again too.

I use WE, because what WE are doing is affecting EVERYONE.

glad you cleared that up, I thought I might have been confused.

There is an Oriental idiom about a frog in a well. It was a happy frog and mastered its environment. However, its knew nothing of the outside world, other than what it could see from the small opening above.

So don’t just listen to me, listen to all the knowledge people who work in the larger environment and you will find a similar level of concern along with a pessimistic attitude for the future.

>along with a pessimistic attitude

I don’t mind a bit of pessimism, don’t know that i’d like to make a friend of it 24/7.

transition said:

>along with a pessimistic attitude

I don’t mind a bit of pessimism, don’t know that i’d like to make a friend of it 24/7.

Well you could always retreat to the bottom of the well.