Page 1 on 7

This Man that favors the economy to life, biodiversity and nature ...

published: 20/10/16, 13:58
by Christophe
As Mars is in the news ...

There is a definite paradox between the efforts made to search for extra-terrestrial life and those undertaken to destroy earthly life!

Or rather "those not undertaken to conserve terrestrial life" ... but that's more to say ... Suggestions for reformulation?

It's a little like the paradox between people's interest in the weather and their lack of interest in the climate ... I never really understood either ...

Subject divided since climate-change-co2 / analysis-on-warming-climate-anthropogenic-t7605-260.html

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 14:44
by Ahmed
I think that your first wording was the right one and that it is inappropriate to introduce an important nuance, which is not necessary.
But if I interpret correctly what you write, what bothers you in your first sentence is that there is no deliberate will to harm, only an intense objectively destructive activity (which does not change much to the result).
This is where the important debate is located and not whether or not the warming is of anthropogenic origin and to what extent: it is an interesting scientific question but without effect on the reasons which should methodologically push us to do " as if "we were responsible. Because we are responsible, even if it is not RC, for the accelerated degradation of the environment and the creation of a system which, by its apparent success, hides from us its extreme fragility and the destitution that will be ours, after its programmed failure ...

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 14:50
by Christophe
Ahmed wrote:But if I interpret correctly what you write, what bothers you in your first sentence is that there is no deliberate will to harm, only an intense objectively destructive activity (which does not change much to the result).


Yes that's exactly it: we do not destroy nature or biodiversity "voluntarily" (and if that happens, we tend to give a damn as long as the money comes in ...) ... that's what which bothers me a little in the first formulation ...

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 14:59
by Ahmed
Christophe, you write:
Yes that's exactly it: we do not destroy nature or biodiversity "voluntarily" (and if that happens, we tend to give a damn as long as the money comes in ...) ...

The second part of your sentence is self-explanatory: this is good because the creation of abstract value dominates all other considerations that real value can and must be destroyed (and not because of a simple "tendency", but by a societal determinism that rewards this behavior).

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 15:03
by Christophe
Therefore? What suggestion of reformulation?

Ahmed wrote:but by a societal determinism that rewards this behavior


This, very fair, should be the subject of another quote "made in econology" : Cheesy:

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 16:46
by sen-no-sen
Christophe wrote:Yes! And a little parenthesis, as Mars is in the news ...

There is a definite paradox between the efforts made to search for extra-terrestrial life and those undertaken to destroy earthly life!

Or rather "those not undertaken to conserve terrestrial life" ... but that's more to say ... Suggestions for reformulation?



There is a paradox in appearance, but apparently only.
Technology follows a logic of complexity through a totaling development, except that it causes accelerated degradation of the biosphere (in favor of technosphere) ... so it would be naïve to think that more technology would solve the problem!


As I have already mentioned on another topic, the degradation of the biosphere is not accidental, nor clearly voluntary, but deterministic.
Out of this point of view, it is in fact perfectly logical that this technology is now turning to space, in order to implement it.

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 16:54
by Christophe
Ahmed wrote:... Because we are responsible, even if it is not the RC, the accelerated degradation of the environment and the creation of a system that, by its apparent success, hides its extreme fragility and deprivation that will be the ours, after its programmed failure ...


Thin I missed this part ... (Oh yes it was added after ...).

Bin me, I think that the degradation of nature has perhaps entered ... in the "nature" of man ... I will try an explanation ...

For tens of thousands of years, man had to fight for his survival against a hostile nature (fauna, flora, climate, diseases ...), he became the dominant species on Earth (if we neglect the ants and bacteria lol) while physically, for survival, we can not say that it was spoiled by nature !!

In short, I wonder if our instinct (*) of survival and struggle (survival is a struggle) on nature has not evolved in an instinct of destruction or at least modification of nature and the environment ...

Like a "genetic revenge" which would tell us that as we had to adapt to nature (and nature was not very kind to humanity which suffered a lot of losses **!), That now it is it's up to her to adapt to us ... and bluntly either!

Does it speak to you or does it sound like a beautiful humbug? : Shock: : Cheesy:

A debate on epigenetics: Health-pollution-prevention / l-epigenetic-genetic-memory-cell-or-reality-t11796.html

* This instinct is largely atrophied! We do not really need it every day for a large part of humanity ... Currently we are in a paradigm of economic struggle between humans to the one who amassed the most (at the expense of his peers) ... and more really in a fight against nature to survive ...

** it would be interesting to estimate on the history of humanity the volumes of losses of "natural" origin and of "human" origin ... which would explain, according to the same genetic theory, the aggressiveness of man for himself ...

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 17:16
by Ahmed
The great advantage of the human species is its faculty of learning and it is at the same time its curse, since learning = imitation.
The mimetic rivalry results and therefore, the violence that goes with it. I always plan to deal with this subject, but the good weather scatters me in other activities ... : roll:

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 18:42
by eclectron
Christophe wrote:Bin me, I think that the degradation of nature has perhaps entered ... in the "nature" of man ... I will try an explanation ...


I warn you go get pissed off ... : Lol:

According to my observations and readings, the actions of the human being are guided by several factors:

- Desire : search for satisfaction, escape from suffering.
This quest creates or strengthens a permanent center, which experiences me, in the flow of sometimes contradictory desires that we have in mind.
This center can be named ego.
Ego = a center of permanence that privileges what brings us pleasure and rejects what makes us suffer, any experience reinforces it.
No different from an insect attracted by the light and fleeing the dim light.
Just that in humans, the patterns of attraction or repulsion, are a little more evolved and complex than for the insect.

- Security :search for security of this ego, in the face of the flow of sometimes contradictory desires, or in the face of the events of life which arrive beyond our control, which are insecure, lacking in stability.
the ego is this island of inner stability.
This center of permanence, the ego, only wants to last, because it takes root in the memory of past experiences.
Memory = last in time.
This ego is basically our survival instinct, for the preservation of the body.
The concern in man is that this instinct of survival enters the psychological sphere and in human relations, where the survival of the body, is not at stake.
Just see how an opinion debate becomes a verbal fight to death.
No examples in mind. : Lol:
Just see the billionaire hoarding more than he can ever spend on 1000 lives.

The man is therefore sick of his search for safety, his survival in registers that have nothing to do with the survival of the body and is sick of his desires.
All this is unreasonable.

Man is sick of identifying with the desires that are born in his mind
Nobody masters, desires and ideas come to mind, it comes alone. In meditation we can easily see it. One can eventually master after the fact, respond favorably or not, free to self to identify or not (more easy to say than to do according to circumstances).

To answer you Christophe (finally! : Lol: ), the degradation of nature comes from this center, the ego, selfish by nature who wants to continue and who by unconsciousness responds to his irrational fears and made a little anything by just wanting to survive.
As long as human consciousness does not extend to nature, as long as man remains ego-centered, he sees his personal survival as his primary objective and does not care about what surrounds him, so about nature.
All the more true if it is a city dweller (gross generalization because there are exceptions, being myself a city dweller and I meet peasants not very protective of nature, but the city tends to cut nature having the impression of living off the ground)

As long as man does not realize that he lives in a biosphere of finite dimension and that each of his actions has an action on the biosphere (given the amount of world population), he ignores nature, whereas it is the place that makes us live and shelters us.

The only way out, in my opinion, is the increase of consciousness by everyone, of what man is (his internal functioning described above), of his link with nature, the foster mother.

Re: Analysis of anthropogenic global warming

published: 20/10/16, 18:47
by Christophe
Ok (not even lol lol) but all this does not seem to me incompatible with my hypothesis ...

eclectron wrote:The only way out, in my opinion, is the increase of consciousness by everyone, of what man is (his internal functioning described above), of his link with nature, the foster mother.


It is the basis of econology which wants to graft ecology to the economy is to summarize very quickly: man <-> economy <-> nature ...

That is to say going through money (since man obviously understands "only" that) to better respect the environment and nature!