Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[N80]

"That is true, as far as it goes - ..."  Interesting comment.  I would sincerely ask, "How far does it go?"

I'm guessing that the argument isn't a Christian position, rather, an eloquent presentation of the materialist position - given to make a point. And, I think you've put your finger squarely on the difficulty in trying to remain consistent with a materialist worldview by making reference to the Holocaust.  It is quite obviously a great evil that a materialist may only object to based upon personal preference, not upon any objective transcendent morality.

Rand

Thank you Rand. You said it far better than I did.

[Alan Goldhammer]

These are some of the most dynamic coastlines in the world. They literally change daily. I have personally witnessed a 40 year cycle on the South Carolina coast in which a barrier island lost 100 yards of beach and then regained 150 yards. At high tide the water level is lower than anyone can remember. One island below this one is losing beach at a rapid rate.  The tidal activity on these adjacent islands have nothing to do with sea level change. I suspect the same is true for Norfolk.

Yes, and the Army Corps of Engineers (and other groups) make things worse by trying to tame nature when in cases such as this it cannot be tamed.  Tidal activities will be impacted by rising sea levels as the encroachment of the tides will on average be much higher up the shoreline.  The same events happen after hurricanes when there is significant erosion up and down the shoreline.  Beach resorts spend a large amount of money following such events to replace the beach as the livelihood of the community depends on it.  the US government spent upwards of $10B on flood control in New Orleans after Katrina.  this is may have been a one off event but climate scientists are predicting more violent weather as result of change.  I've lived in Bethesda for almost 40 years and the storms we have had in the last five years are much stronger than the past.  perhaps it is a statistical aberration, but I'm betting on climate change.

[DeanChriss]

This line of thought has so many problems. First, we are animals, right? Evolved just like all the rest. There are limited resources. We grow, others decline. If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species. Survival of the fittest. We are stronger. We win. For now.

Second, we only want to talk about polar bears and animals that are furry and cute. Pretty trees and woodlands. That is a fetish. It is a desire. It has nothing to do with the evolution of life on the planet. In a world view in which all this happened by accident a slug has no more or less value than a polar bear. Just because we 'like' polar bears is hardly cause to buck the evolutionary order. From that standpoint we are only obligated, evolutionarily, to preserve that which preserves us.

Third, there is no evidence that human expansion, global warming or anything else has produced less life on this planet. Bacteria are by far and away the most successful life form. They are doing just fine and in great diversity. Sure, we can't see them, they don't have big sad eyes, but they are life and they are thriving.

Fourth, so much of the climate argument hinges on having things a certain way, typically the way they are now, or were 20 years ago. Why? Things change. If we are changing them, so what?

So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.

First: Science provides information that we each deal with within our own moral framework. Morals are a human construct and unguided evolution has absolutely nothing to do with them. Your sentence "If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species." is a non sequitur. If you had said "If evolution is a fact and it is also a fact that it was unguided then there is nothing morally scientifically wrong with us dominating the globe to propagate our species" you'd be absolutely correct. Whether it is moral or not depends on you, and society's consensus of what is moral. Many people have no concern about human impact on any other specie, or even on other humans. Many have no concern for what sort of world is passed on to the future. Some argue that our sun will eventually burn out so nothing we do matters. None of them are scientifically wrong because science does not address morality. In my own view it would be a pretty crappy world without birds and other wildlife, but that's just me.

Second: True.

Third: I'm not at all sure about this. I doubt it, but it could be that the total amount of "life" by some measure (biomass?) might be constant. I've never seen anything relating to this.

Fourth: We know that the most biodiversity exists in places where climate has been reasonably constant for the longest periods of time. We're talking not about today or a hundred years ago, but tens to hundreds of millions of years. As for the "so what?", any response to that is a moral judgment. If you feel no responsibility to conserve any of what we've got for the future you'll find nothing in science to contradict you.

I'm not looking to science to say anything we are doing is wrong. I'm looking to science for the best knowledge available and hoping our society's consensus of what is moral will cause us to conserve some of what's here now. You know, the old saw about preserving the world for the future. Maybe someone a decade or a century from now would enjoy seeing wildlife, or just sitting by a lake and watching the ducks, as much as I do.

[jeremyrh]

You are not paying attention. I said in my local area. Right here where I live. Now, I know, in my heart, why I should be concerned about people elsewhere who might suffer from climate change (and I do). But on what basis do YOU assert that I should care about them? And if you can't make a case for why I should care, then global warming is not relevant to me.

And let's be clear about California's water supply. That's about population and waste. Not global warming. Not yet anyway.

Seems like it's you who is not paying attention. You seem to imagine that the impact of climate change local to you is only about a change in your weather. It's not. Even you in your little bubble will be affected by the consequences I mentioned. It's not just about caring about other people.

[jeremyrh]

Again, I do not believe in unguided evolution or the logical consequences of believing it.

Which is exactly why it's pointless attempting to have this discussion with you.

But yes, for those who have no moral basis for their beliefs one would see the Holocaust as just once group making its evolutionary way and nothing more. You have to be a theist for any other conclusion.

Nope.

[Jeremy Roussak]

That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.

2.5 pages in and Godwin's law strikes already. Jeremy, your vilely offensive slur means that you have lost - permanently - such credibility as you might once have managed to maintain.

Jeremy

[jeremyrh]

2.5 pages in and Godwin's law strikes already. Jeremy, your vilely offensive slur means that you have lost - permanently - such credibility as you might once have managed to maintain.

Jeremy

What slur do you imagine I have made, Jeremy?

[Christopher Sanderson]

I have asked Jeremyrh to publicly clarify his statement "I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason..."

Please avoid inflammatory posts until he clarifies his precise meaning or intention.

Christopher Sanderson

[jeremyrh]

Quote from: N80 on Today at 04:21:24
So if you want to make an argument for the preservation of certain species or some imaginary status quo, climate science is not your ally. In fact, science in general is your enemy. Science doesn't care what you or I want or desire. It can't and shouldn't. To justify some human obligation to preserving and conserving you will have to look somewhere other than science because when the last polar bear finally dies it will have a net impact of just about ZERO on virtually the entire human population. It will be an evolutionary event of virtually no importance whatsoever.


That is true, as far as it goes - nature red in tooth and claw, que sera sera. Strange argument for a Christian to make, but there ya go. I suppose you would support the Holocaust for the same reason - just one race stronger than another - get rid of the Jews - no big deal in evolutionary terms, the human species keeps on truckin'.

Chris Sanderson has asked me to clarify my meaning here, which I am happy to do.

My point is simple - N80 suggested that the extinction of the polar bear would be no big deal in evolutionary terms. My comment as regards the Holocaust was "reductio ad absurdum" - to point out that his claim that something is nothing to bother about because it is of no importance in evolutionary terms is completely absurd, just as it would be absurd, and indeed profoundly offensive, to suggest that the Holocaust was no big deal because it does not affect the overall evolutionary future of the planet.

If this was not clear, and if people understood something other than what I actually intended them to understand, then please accept my apologies.

[Rand47]

. . . but that's just me.

And that is one of the problematic aspects of the materialist worldview, it "is" just you (or any individual).  The individual is the measure of all things, merely based in preference, with no appeal to transcendent values of any sort. Most materialists do not and cannot live out their philosophical position with logical consistency.  Your heartfelt appeal in this thread seeming to me a robust example of this, as is your own clarification in stating that the Holocaust is "reduction ad absurdum" based on your moral preference.  I did not misunderstand your using it in that sense, but I stick with my position that you could quite literally use it as an example based on logical coherence with a materialist worldview.

Some, e.g. Richard Dawkins (one of the self-professed "brights"), do strive to be rationally consistent. Hence his quote from "River out of Eden."

In River out of Eden : A Darwinian View of Life Richard Dawkins wrote:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Again, Dawkins writes:  “The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Rand

Edited to expand thought and respond to clarification.

[N80]

Morals are a human construct and unguided evolution has absolutely nothing to do with them.

If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities. Large groups of people have passed laws and done things (Hitler, slavery) that were accepted by the culture in which they occurred. If morals are a human construct then slavery, in 1850 would have been "moral". So the idea of morality depending on human trends and desires makes morality utterly meaningless. It is no more than a prevailing opinion.

Unguided evolution has everything to do with the notion of morality. If we are a product of unguided evolution and nothing else then morality is, at best, a genetically encoded survival mechanism. This concept is weak at best since many moral behaviors are either neutral or detrimental when it comes to survival. And even if true, there is nothing binding about how our DNA leads us to behave and many behaviors we known to be inherent we find universally reprehensible.

Whether it is moral or not depends on you, and society's consensus of what is moral.

Again, this idea takes all meaning from the word 'moral'. It is a virtual oxymoron. Again, without some level of "oughtness" the idea of relative morals is absurd.

Many people have no concern about human impact on any other specie, or even on other humans. Many have no concern for what sort of world is passed on to the future.

Correct, but your rather classical existentialist view on the matter suggests that people who have concern for others are just as "moral" as those who don't. Right?

In my own view it would be a pretty crappy world without birds and other wildlife, but that's just me.

Me too. But who are we to project our wants and desires on someone else? Unless, of course, there is a moral imperative to do so. But that can only come from one place.

Third: I'm not at all sure about this. I doubt it, but it could be that the total amount of "life" by some measure (biomass?) might be constant. I've never seen anything relating to this.

I'm sure biomass fluctuates. I'm also sure beyond a doubt than some fraction of the biomass will benefit from rising temperatures.

We know that the most biodiversity exists in places where climate has been reasonably constant for the longest periods of time.

I'm sure you'll anticipate this response: Why do we humans, as a species, need to be concerned about biodiversity? Of course I know the pat answers and wholly agree with them. But if biodiversity is declining as we humans ascend, well................

If you feel no responsibility to conserve any of what we've got for the future you'll find nothing in science to contradict you.

Exactly! That's a hard pill to swallow for folks who believe anything preceded by "Scientists say............"

I'm not looking to science to say anything we are doing is wrong.

Correct. Science can say nothing about what is right or wrong. But if your approach to science is purely materialistic then there are no morals. This is the heart of the existential crisis. That is why, in this argument which at heart is about stewardship, there is nothing the materialist can say about how anyone responds to the data. All answers are correct if each individual is existential comfortable with them. Don't tell me to drive a Prius or turn off my AC because that is your (not you specifically) existential decision, not mine.

Maybe someone a decade or a century from now would enjoy seeing wildlife, or just sitting by a lake and watching the ducks, as much as I do.

Me too. And that's the irony. I believe there is a moral imperative for us to be good stewards of this planet. It is a command. We must do it. We should do it. We ought to do it. But if that command or that imperative comes simply from another person or another group then it can be ignored unless enforced by violence which is how "morals" derived by humans are usually made "moral".

[N80]

Chris Sanderson has asked me to clarify my meaning here, which I am happy to do.

My point is simple - N80 suggested that the extinction of the polar bear would be no big deal in evolutionary terms. My comment as regards the Holocaust was "reductio ad absurdum" - to point out that his claim that something is nothing to bother about because it is of no importance in evolutionary terms is completely absurd, just as it would be absurd, and indeed profoundly offensive, to suggest that the Holocaust was no big deal because it does not affect the overall evolutionary future of the planet.

If this was not clear, and if people understood something other than what I actually intended them to understand, then please accept my apologies.

Once again Rand has responded far more elegantly than I could have.

[jeremyrh]

Once again Rand has responded far more elegantly than I could have.

Yawn.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

First: Science provides...

Second: True.

Third: ...

Fourth: ...

Thank you. I wrote a reply in much the same vein as yours but  far less diplomatic. Then I never posted it, probably just as well.

Losing hope in humanity a bit there.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities.

Unguided evolution has everything to do with the notion of morality.

Again, this idea takes all meaning from the word 'moral'.

Exactly! That's a hard pill to swallow for folks who believe anything preceded by "Scientists say............"

Correct. Science can say nothing about what is right or wrong.

Me too. And that's the irony. I believe there is a moral imperative for us to be good stewards of this planet. It is a command. We must do it. We should do it. We ought to do it. But if that command or that imperative comes simply from another person or another group then it can be ignored unless enforced by violence which is how "morals" derived by humans are usually made "moral".

I feel stupider for having read all that but here goes.

I don't think it is a construct as much as it is an emergant phenomena.

Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

It is a concept that has meaning, but it is not a law or force of nature or binding in any way no...

It is not a hard pill to swallow.

Science says what is happening, what we do about it is up to us.

Wherever it comes from make little difference. This talk of morals in a topic of global warming is pretty useless. I think your entire line of reasoning is offensive. You are basically saying, if you believe in science, global warming is not important because lack of morality. If you reject science then you might find it important but we then we can't even know it is happening so... what, we get stay in la-la land? I don't really know what point you are trying to make.

I would just like to end with a quote from Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

[Alan Klein]

Religion, not science, provides the moral foundation.  If people abuse or distort it, that's on them not the religion.  Without religion we would have no purpose in life.  We would just be atoms born one minute and sped off to nothingness the next. Without it, man decides what is moral and that can change to where we can see murder on an unimaginable scale.  Religion also provides the moral foundation for care of nature.  Science only provides information. 

So the question of what to do with climate change even it is proven to be true becomes one of moral and practical decision making.  There are no clear answers to these problems because there are no clear absolutes what any one action will do.  There are trade offs to costs.  Help in one area create hardships in another.  Different people are effected differently depending where you stand. 

[Torbjörn Tapani]

Alan I very strongly disagree.

Religion provides a cultural and moral framework. Science does not. But that does not mean that we need religion to have morals. That is just not true.

[N80]

I feel stupider for having read all that but here goes.

Maybe that is appropriate. (Couldn't resist, sorry.)

I don't think it is a construct as much as it is an emergant phenomena.

What? Emergent when? Why? And even if so, how is that relevant?

Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

Because you say so?

It is a concept that has meaning

Well that's a bold statement.

but it is not a law or force of nature or binding in any way no...

From a materialistic perspective that is exactly what I've been saying.

It is not a hard pill to swallow.

Say so many who will not even put it in their mouth. It is hard to swallow and it is the issue that defines our time. Right and wrong either exist or they do not. Either state has huge, hard to swallow consequences. The ONLY conclusion about either one of them that is logically unacceptable is that there are no consequences.

Science says what is happening, what we do about it is up to us.

Sort of. Science attempts to say what is happening. Its self defined limits are quite profound.

This talk of morals in a topic of global warming is pretty useless.

Again, ignoring the pill. The climate change movement suggests, no, commands, that we do certain things. It defines how we should and ought to respond. Neither science nor a movement have that moral authority. It is only an opinion. Nothing more. It so desires that moral authority but it has nothing to base it on.

I think your entire line of reasoning is offensive.

I'm sorry. Some are more easily offended than others. And then some 'get offended' to steer an argument........

You are basically saying, if you believe in science, global warming is not important because lack of morality.

Not what I said in any way. I have said the science is poor. I have said that the ideological response to enforce certain solutions to the perceived problem lacks moral authority. The first statement is arguable. The second statement is not.

If you reject science then you might find it important but we then we can't even know it is happening so... what, we get stay in la-la land? I don't really know what point you are trying to make.

Well, as the cliche' goes, I can explain it to you but I can't make you understand it. 

I would just like to end with a quote from Steven Weinberg: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Yes, a typical and tired old atheistic cliche' with no logical basis. Sounds good but makes no sense and does not even reflect any portion of reality. But I'll counter it with this one from Heisenberg:

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

- Werner Heisenberg, winner of Nobel Prize in Physics (1932)

[N80]

Alan I very strongly disagree.

Religion provides a cultural and moral framework. Science does not. But that does not mean that we need religion to have morals. That is just not true.

This is a logically untenable position. One which Sartre labeled cowardly. You can only have morals without God if you water down the meaning of the word 'moral'. Even that will not pass muster though.

But, you sound quite certain. Tell me, all of us, what basis there is for morality if not from a transcendental force.  If you can do it it will be a historic moment. Sartre failed and so have far greater minds than him. But go ahead, we're all ears.

(I do not use the word religion for this. It is not the right word. Religion is a human institution and shares the same weaknesses with all other human institutions.)

[DeanChriss]

And that is one of the problematic aspects of the materialist worldview, it "is" just you (or any individual). 
...

If morals are a human construct then they have no binding qualities.
...

Well that's interesting but incredibly far from the topic of "Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?". Just for clarity I assume your definition of "materialist" is a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter, its movements, and modifications. I have never in my life been called a materialist before, but I did spend a significant part of my life studying physics and mathematics and made a living for 30 some years and counting helping my clients solve related problems. My parents were somewhat religious but I started being skeptical about religion about the same time I started thinking Santa Claus might not exist. I personally know quite a few Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, and a few with odder beliefs. I have no problems with anyone believing whatever they like as long as they don't expect me to believe it too. There is no way to prove any of us right or wrong, and if believing something gives a person some comfort that's fine. Some aspects of Buddhism and Taoism are similar to how my own thinking evolved before I knew anything about those named philosophies. I don't think I was anything or anywhere before I was born. I also believe that when I die I will just cease to exist. Period. I think having a positive impact on the world and those around us while alive is the best anyone can hope to do, and that's what I try to do. Heaven and hell is what we make of the here and now.

I suspect you will say my having any concept of good and evil is logically inconsistent with my materialist philosophy. Maybe those concepts are something my parents instilled in me. They might be responsible for my empathetic tendencies. Or maybe we have evolved some chemistry in our brains that helps give us those traits. Maybe something else is going on but my very last bet would be on a deity. I've seen a lot of wildlife behavior over the years and we're not all that different, especially the primates. Whatever is responsible most creatures probably have it  to some extent too. I guess that leaves my parents out of it. I don't know the answer to these questions but they are not something I ever wonder about or feel any need to answer. In fact writing this post consumed about 10 minutes that could be better used doing almost anything else.

As for all the doom, gloom and "nothing but pitiless indifference", believe what you like. Regardless of what you believe I'm a reasonably happy guy. If I knew I would die tonight I'd have few regrets. I'd be comfortable with having done some good in the world and having left a relatively small footprint on it. I've got nothing of significance to complain about and it has been quite a good life in all. It would be nice to have more time but nothing lasts forever.

This has all been interesting, but honestly the parsing of sentences is getting way too pedantic for me. It is also serving no purpose. If we agree on something, fine. To agree on something but argue about why we agree is close to insanity.