Can we save our planet by reasoning together?

[coberst]

Can we save our planet by reasoning together?

 

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

 

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to, but more appropriately larger than, that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

 

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

 

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

 

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the evolved nature of greed and selfishness? I cannot imagine any rational motivation of sufficient strength to divert the natural instincts of a whole people for an extended time. Therefore, the motivation force must be emotionally based.

 

A compelling sense of stewardship must come through religion. Rationality is insufficient to creating a compulsion to sacrifice immediate gratification for such remote ends.

[Queso]

stewardship comes with responsibility.

responsibility comes right about now.

 

humans are evolving, growing up.

say goodbye to greed, to violence, and arrogance, as a whole.

 

a wave of light, we are riding.

should take a good couple hundred years for everyone to wake up.

 

check out the global stewardship foundation. In theory they have some fantastic ideas for our future.

[coberst]

Global capitalism is the road to perdition.

 

It seems to me that the logic of capitalism leads us to the destruction of the planet, at least to the extent as to make it uninhabitable to humans. I understand that cockroaches thrive on radiation.

 

The logic of capitalism is to maximize production and consumption. To follow this logic is to destroy the planetary ecosystem in order to feed the need for raw materials required to maintain this drive to maximize production and consumption.

 

Constantly increasing the degree of automation, which is another aspect of the logic of capitalism, constantly pushes humans into a more alienating life style. As automation increases the meaning for existence for humans becomes an ever increasingly difficult illusion to maintain because work is the principal means for developing self-esteem.

[jackson33]

to the thread; you are suggesting that mankind can steward over nature. then as some one suggested, under what rules or opinions would this project follow. a third of the worlds people feel this should be by religious cleric, another third by governments which take from and give back for desire and the rest in some form of every one is self responsible. each is by the way, totally convinced of their view and no compromise possible.

 

Coberst; the logic of capitalism, is that every one can live in standards they choose. free market, the essence of capitalism does not hamper the individual in any way and each person can achieve his/HER own destiny. this in turn creates competition, or folks that think they can do something better in many cases with success. in the US and i would think much of the world this is called small business. 70%+ in the US and governed by the same rules as the ones i feel your attacking. those you opposed are for the most part are then owned by individual stock holders or controlled by the customers it produces for or serves offered.

 

automation, is an invention of need. like it or not there are not now or will there ever be enough people to do the jobs now done by such inventions. i heard someplace that if ATT or the total telecommunication system were forced to operate under 1950 conditions, every man, woman and child on the planet would be required and then this at best would be 25% of current efficiency.

 

as for human self esteem, which i call responsibility; you might look at this from a socialistic view point, which says all people regardless of effort should be entitled to the same things.

[Zythryn]

I disagree with the idea that capitalism leads to death of the planet.

First, we can't destroy the planet. We can destroy ourselves, and much of the life on the planet, but the plane will be fine.

However, taking the subject as exageration...

Capitalism does not lead to harm to the enviornment. In a free market, there may be damage to certain local areas, however this will be corrected. What we are facing, and what is so harmful to our enviornment, is that we are not dealing with a free market.

Our government subsidizes companies that are doing the harm. These subsidies make the product (oil in this case) artificially low in price. This makes it more difficult for new, innovative ideas to gain acceptance.

 

Let's just say the oil industry gets 2 Billion in tax breaks/subsidies a year. I just put 200 sq feet of solar panels on my roof at a cost of about $20,000 dolars. The 2 Billion dollars in tax breaks/subsidies to oil, would have bought about 20 Million sq feet of solar panels.

 

Yes, I agree our government is broken, as the corporations have undue influence over our law makers. However, our government is not a true capitalistic system. So blaming capitalism doesn't work so well.

However, I am not sure a true capitalistic system would work better.

[hug]

The question of why humans sometimes (or often) do things even though they know that those things aren't good for them is a very interesting question. People see it and do it (to different degrees) every week. The question is not just, why don't we think of the fifth generation if the future as seriously as we would think of the well-being of our own children. It's even "closer to home" than that: Why don't people adopt habits for themselves, currently, or for their children, currently, that would be healthy and beneficial, even though those people know that those habits would be healthy and beneficial? I have some thoughts on the subject, which I won't go into now. But, I'll mention a program that I've seen once or twice while switching news channels late at night when trying to get away from the A.N. Smith coverage. It's that MSNBC program about "preditors". If you'd like one very real-life candid-camera-type glimpse at why some people do amazingly dumb-and-harmful things, knowing full well that those things are not good, watch that program.

 

This is a very interesting subject, and I'd be happy to continue participation if we think we can make some progress on the subject. That said, I think that we should recruit some psychologists or psychiatrists from the psychology area, for interesting input and diversity of thought.

[coberst]

hug

 

What do you think about this claim I made in the OP?

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

Do think there is a moral justification for such a claim? Are we morally responsible to do something of this nature?

[Michaelangelica]

hug

 

What do you think about this claim I made in the OP?

 

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

 

Do think there is a moral justification for such a claim? Are we morally responsible to do something of this nature?

It is a hard proposition to disagree with.

 

We just need to shoot all the people who don't agree

 

Including all poor, subsistence farmers that degrade the soil and environment merely to eat.

[coberst]

It is a hard proposition to disagree with.

 

We just need to shoot all the people who don't agree

 

Including all poor, subsistence farmers that degrade the soil and environment merely to eat.

 

 

Whoo! You are a great help!!

[Zythryn]

I agree with the idea that we are morally obligated to leave the enviornment in as good or better condition than when we came to be (note my signature:)).

However, outside of a few people able to see past their immediate needs (which is very rare) almost no one forgoes immediate needs, even wants for what will be needed tomorrow.

It is basic evolutionary survival which we haven't grown past. It is more important to escape the tiger chasing me now than worry about where to hunt tomorrow.

Add to that the marketing of people that have an interest in the status quo, and it becomes even more difficult. People have to see it is affecting them NOW or at the very least, that it will affect them and not just affect their grandchildren.

[coberst]

I agree with the idea that we are morally obligated to leave the enviornment in as good or better condition than when we came to be (note my signature:)).

However, outside of a few people able to see past their immediate needs (which is very rare) almost no one forgoes immediate needs, even wants for what will be needed tomorrow.

It is basic evolutionary survival which we haven't grown past. It is more important to escape the tiger chasing me now than worry about where to hunt tomorrow.

Add to that the marketing of people that have an interest in the status quo, and it becomes even more difficult. People have to see it is affecting them NOW or at the very least, that it will affect them and not just affect their grandchildren.

 

 

Is there some means to affect human behavior to save the species from extinction?

 

It seems to me that twenty five hundred years ago humans thought that religion might provide the means for positively affecting human behavior. That means has proven to be insufficient for the job that we now present to it. Our power of destruction has far surpassed our ability to control homicide on a vast scale, a scale sufficient to make the species extinct.

 

Can we develop a secular moral code effective enough to do the job? If not what is your suggestion.

[Zythryn]

Well, just one simple little thing. Eliminate global poverty:eek:

Seriously, that is it. The way I see it, many people, rightfully so, worry more about getting food, clean water, and protection from the local enviornment than what is happening tomorrow. If people didn't need to worry about survival so much, then we may be able to tackle subjects that are going to affect them in a few years.

 

For the countries in which people have their survival needs well taken care of, we need better education and less advertising (from both sides). Too many people base decisions on purchases, politics, education and all other aspects of life on what marketers tell them. I am not sure how we grow out of that.

My only suggestion that may help is to teach an intro to logic class in elementary school, perhaps with a refresher course every few years. Basics such as what makes for logical fallisies and so on.

[freeztar]

I think you have a good point Zyth, but I don't think it is that cut and dry.

 

For example, suppose you meet an obese person. You teach them the merits of eating healthy and excercise and even offer to pay for their diet plan, including food. It remains that the decision to eat healthy is up to the obese person. It is quite likely that the obese person will not willfully change eating and exercise patterns until their health has diminished so greatly that they are forced to pursue a healthier lifestyle just to survive, if it's not too late by that time.

 

In America, where richness abounds and environmental education is rampant, you still have people smoking cigarettes on their death bed, cancer and all.

 

Nature has its own way of balancing things. When wolves multiply and eat all of the rabbits in the area into scarcity, the wolves die back from lack of food and the rabbits are allowed to have a population boom. And so the cycle goes...

 

We are not immune to this no matter how moral we believe ourselves to be.

 

Some birds will kill their newborn because they "know" that it will be impossible to provide food and would weigh the rest of the offspring down and possibly cause more death. Many more examples of this exist in Nature. Can we call the birds moral?

[coberst]

Well, just one simple little thing. Eliminate global poverty:eek:

Seriously, that is it. The way I see it, many people, rightfully so, worry more about getting food, clean water, and protection from the local enviornment than what is happening tomorrow. If people didn't need to worry about survival so much, then we may be able to tackle subjects that are going to affect them in a few years.

 

For the countries in which people have their survival needs well taken care of, we need better education and less advertising (from both sides). Too many people base decisions on purchases, politics, education and all other aspects of life on what marketers tell them. I am not sure how we grow out of that.

My only suggestion that may help is to teach an intro to logic class in elementary school, perhaps with a refresher course every few years. Basics such as what makes for logical fallisies and so on.

 

Some very good suggestions!

 

Eliminate global poverty is a great suggestion and a large moral issue indeed. When I think about this problem the first question to pop into my mind--is it possible for global capitalism to eliminate global poverty? Is capitalism the means for, or is it the hurdle to overcome?

 

On the positive side capitalism is the most efficient means to increase production and consumption and thus wealth. On the negative side it seems to me to be an economic system that has little desire or need to eliminate poverty unless there is money-in-it. Since there is no money-in-it then what motive is there to do so? Capitalism seems to be a system for the individual comfort and not for the group welfare. Capitalism seems to be a system that is all head and no heart.

 

I think your idea of teaching children how to think is another excellent idea. In the area of learning I think that yours is a good idea but I think that convincing adults to become learners would be faster and perhaps much more positive. Our educational system is so fixated on vocational learning that I do not think it will change without a bottom up demand. The people will not recognize the importance of learning how to think until they become learners themselves.

[coberst]

freeztar

 

I think that you might agree with the suggestion I made to Z about the best thing we might do is to convince adults to 'get a life--get an intellectual life'. When adults become learners, I think our problems will better receive quick results.

[freeztar]

freeztar

 

I think that you might agree with the suggestion I made to Z about the best thing we might do is to convince adults to 'get a life--get an intellectual life'. When adults become learners, I think our problems will better receive quick results.

 

It's a great suggestion, but how feasible is it?

The second you tell someone they must become a "learner" because they do not understand the consequences of their actions, is the same moment that they will become wary of your motives. The historic backlash to the environmental movement is a good example. Global warming anyone?

 

I don't agree with your ideas on capitalism though. I think there are ways that people or companies can help groups of people and still make money. I read a book several years ago called "Natural Capitalism" that describes (with real world examples) how capitalism can benefit the environment. It's an intriguing read and I highly recommend it to anyone interested in economics or the environment. The main premise of the book is that currently, capitalism does not place inherent value on natural systems. By associating a value with things that have an arbitrary value (such as clean air), then we can begin to structure creative ways of tapping into that value and making the environment part of our accounting sheets.

[coberst]

freeztar says--"It's a great suggestion, but how feasible is it?"

 

I think that it is feasible, and the following essay is my reason for thinking so. I apologize for its length but I felt it necessary if I am going to convince someone to 'give it a try'.

 

If you try it I am convinced you will like it. And it is especially fulfilling in the older years. But like in other ways, if we are going to have it in October through December we will have to start preparing the ground in the spring.

 

 

Introduction

 

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty five years of self-learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

 

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge.

 

Disinterested Knowledge

 

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

 

I think of the self-learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the September Scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

 

We often use the metaphors of ‘seeing’ for knowing and ‘grasping’ for understanding. I think these metaphors significantly illuminate the difference between these two forms of intellection. We see much but grasp little. It takes great force to impel us to go beyond seeing to the point of grasping. The force driving us is the strong personal involvement we have to the question that guides our quest. I think it is this inclusion of self-fulfillment, as associated with the question, that makes self-learning so important.

 

The self-learner of disinterested knowledge is engaged in a single-minded search for understanding. The goal, grasping the ‘truth’, is generally of insignificant consequence in comparison to the single-minded search. Others must judge the value of the ‘truth’ discovered by the autodidactic. I suggest that truth, should it be of any universal value, will evolve in a biological fashion when a significant number of pursuers of disinterested knowledge engage in dialogue.

 

Experience

 

We develop as we gain experience—interact with the world. Self-learning is one way of interacting with the world. Through the process of reading we apprehend the world and in this interaction a dialectic process develops. As I experience, through reading, I attempt to 'make sense' of the world and thus develop ever-richer and more sophisticated concepts. As I conceive this more sophisticated worldview I am also creating a more sophisticated self. The word ‘conception’ is an accurate word for the result of this experience. Just as the interaction of the two genders of all creatures result often in new life so does the interaction of reader and author.

 

There are books available in most community college libraries written by experts especially for the lay reader. I would guess that virtually all matters of interest are copiously and expertly elaborated upon by experts wishing to inform the public about every subject imaginable. Quantum theory and theory of relativity are examples of the most esoteric domains of knowledge accessible to most readers sufficiently motivated to persevere through some difficult study. For twenty-five dollars a year I am a ‘Friend of the Library’ at my community college and thus able to borrow any book therein.

 

The experience the September Scholar seeks is solely determined by his or her own internal ‘voice’. The curiosity and imagination of the learner drive the voice. Our formal education system has left most of us with little appreciation or understanding of our own curiosity and imagination. That characteristic so obvious in children has been subdued and, I suspect, stilled to the point that each one attempting this journey of discovery must make a conscious effort to reinvigorate the ‘inner voice’. We must search to ‘hear’ the voice, which is perhaps only a whisper that has become a stranger in our life. But, let me assure you, once freed again that voice will drive the self-learner with the excitement and satisfaction commensurate to any other experience.

 

I grew up in a Catholic family living in a small town in Oklahoma. My teachers were nuns and I learned how to read often by reading my Baltimore Catechism. The catechism is a small book, fitting easily in the back pocket of a pair of overalls, with a brown paper cover that contains the fundamental doctrine of the Catholic faith. It is in a question and answer format. I can still remember, after more than sixty years, the first page of that book.

 

Question: Who made you?

Answer: God made me.

Question: Why did God make you?

Answer: God made me to know Him, to love Him and to serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him in the next.

 

Before I had read the adventures of “Jack and Jill”, I had learned the answers to the most profound questions that has troubled humanity for more than twenty-five hundred years. Such was the educational methodology that changed little for the next sixteen years of my formal education. My teachers always told me what was important and what I must ‘know’ to be educated. The good student learned early to understand that education was a process of determining what questions the teacher regarded as important and to remember, for the test, the correct answers to those important questions. Since I was not required to provide the questions for the test I never concerned myself with such unimportant trivia as questions. I could always depend upon the teacher to come forward with all the questions.

 

I seek disinterested knowledge because I wish to understand. The object of understanding is determined by questions guiding my quest. These guiding questions originate as a result of the force inherent in my curiosity and imagination.

 

The self-learner must develop the ability to create the questions. We have never before given any thought to questions but now, if we wish to take a journey of discover, we must learn the most important aspect of any educational process. We must create questions that will guide our travels. We can no longer depend upon education by coercion to guide us; we have the opportunity to develop education driven by the “ecstasy to understand”.

Education

 

I suspect that most parents attempt to motivate their children to make good grades in school so that their child might go to college and live the American Dream. The college degree is a ticket to the land of dreams (where one produces and consumes more than his or her neighbor). I do not wish to praise or to bury this dream. I think there is great value resulting from this mode of education but it is earned at great sacrifice.

 

The point I wish to pivot on is the fact that higher education in America has become a commodity. To commodify means: to turn (as an intrinsic value or a work of art) into a commodity (an economic good). I would say that the intrinsic value of education is wisdom. It is wisdom that is sacrificed by our comodified higher education system. Our universities produce individuals capable of developing a great technology but lacking the wisdom to manage the world modified by that technology.

 

How can a nation recover the intrinsic value of education without undermining the valuable commodity that our higher education has become?

 

I think that there is much to applaud in our higher educational system. It produces graduates that have proven their ability to significantly guide our society into a cornucopia of material wealth. Perhaps, however, like the Midas touch, this gold has a down side. The down side is a paucity of collective wisdom within the society. I consider wisdom to be a sensitive synthesis of broad knowledge, deep understanding and solid judgement. I suggest that if one individual in a thousand, who has passed the age of forty would become a September Scholar, we could significantly replace the wisdom lost by our comodified higher education.

 

Knowing and Understanding

 

For a long time I have been trying to grasp the distinction between knowing and understanding. I think I have recently stumbled upon a new theory that might help me a great deal in my attempt to discover this distinction.

 

I have recently discovered a contender for paradigm within the cognitive science community. Metaphor theory has in the last thirty years begun to advance important discoveries regarding the nature of the ‘embodied mind’. This theory insists that much of our mental activity is unconscious and driven by the neural networks associated with body sensory and motor control networks. Metaphors are far more important to our knowledge and understanding than previously thought. We live by metaphor.

 

I have just begun to study metaphor theory and perhaps will change my mind but, as of this moment, I am getting hints that this theory will be very important for me and for cognitive science. It has already helped me to grasp the distinction between knowledge and understanding. I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of this theory to give detail now but, if you are interested, you might do a Google to begin your journey for understanding metaphor theory.

 

To get an idea of the distinction between knowing and understanding we can examine the metaphors we commonly use for these two concepts. I ‘see’ when I know and I ‘grasp’ it or I ‘got a handle’ on it when I understand. We can see much but we grasp little. We see at a distance but grasp only what is up close. We are much more intimate with what we grasp than with what we see. We might say ‘seeing is believing’ but I do not think we are comfortable with saying ‘seeing is understanding’.

 

My interests tend to lead me toward such philosophical matters but the point is, each person determines what is important to her or him. Each person takes that path that ‘fits’ for them. No one knows what that might be but the individual herself and often she will not create the same type of questions tomorrow as today.

 

I pointed out earlier that the September Scholar was driven by an interest in disinterested knowledge. You might add to that paradox that the September Scholar seeks disinterested knowledge because s/he is engaged in a journey of understanding of both the self and the other.

From Net-worth to Self-worth

 

In the United States our culture compels us to have a purpose. Our culture defines that purpose to be ‘maximize production and consumption’. As a result all good children feel compelled to become a successful producer and consumer. All good children both consciously and unconsciously organize their life for this journey.

 

At mid-life many citizens begin to analyze their life and often discover a need to reconstitute their purpose. Some of the advantageous of this self-learning experience is that it is virtually free, undeterred by age, not a zero sum game, surprising, exciting and makes each discovery a new eureka moment. The self-learning experience I am suggesting is similar to any other hobby one might undertake; interest will ebb and flow. In my case this was a hobby that I continually came back to after other hobbies lost appeal.

 

I suggest for your consideration that if we “Get a life—Get an intellectual life” we very well might gain substantially in self-worth and, perhaps, community-worth.

 

As a popular saying goes ‘there is a season for all things’. We might consider that spring and summer are times for gathering knowledge, maximizing production and consumption, and increasing net-worth; while fall and winter are seasons for gathering understanding, creating wisdom and increasing self-worth.

 

I have been trying to encourage adults, who in general consider education as a matter only for young people, to give this idea of self-learning a try. It seems to be human nature to do a turtle (close the mind) when encountering a new and unorthodox idea. Generally we seem to need for an idea to face us many times before we can consider it seriously. A common method for brushing aside this idea is to think ‘I’ve been there and done that’, i.e. ‘I have read and been a self-learner all my life’.

 

It is unlikely that you will encounter this unorthodox suggestion ever again. You must act on this occasion or never act. The first thing is to make a change in attitude about just what is the nature of education. Then one must face the world with a critical outlook. A number of attitude changes are required as a first step. All parents, I guess, recognize the problems inherent in attitude adjustment. We just have to focus that knowledge upon our self as the object needing an attitude adjustment rather than our child.

 

Another often heard response is that “you are preaching to the choir”. If you conclude that this is an old familiar tune then I have failed to make clear my suggestion. I recall a story circulating many years ago when the Catholic Church was undergoing substantial changes. Catholics where no longer using Latin in the mass, they were no longer required to abstain from meat on Friday and many other changes. The story goes that one lady was complaining about all these changes and she said, “with all these changes the only thing one will need to do to be a good Catholic is love thy neighbor”.

 

I am not suggesting a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon. I am suggesting a ‘Lewis and Clark Expedition’. I am suggesting the intellectual equivalent of crossing the Mississippi and heading West across unexplored intellectual territory with the intellectual equivalent of the Pacific Ocean as a destination.