I spend most of my time doom-and-glooming about this sort of stuff in my own head, it's always quite relieving to hear you discuss these issues so cheerily, almost optimistically, while at the same time not diluting the gravity of the situation.
I appreciate the nuanced approach to surrogacy. It's possible to acknowledge our biological nature without being a reactionary. In any case, nice to hear more advocacy for the UBI, which I think would at least engender a much nicer form of capitalism, and perhaps even more than that.
Why is it acceptable to deliberately deprive a child of its connection to its biological mother? Why is it acceptable to deal with children as if they are a commodity? Does a child have any intrinsic rights when it comes to surrogacy?
First of all i want to say, that i deeply respect and love your work, but polemic is true essence of philosophy, right? So, I think that using the "Finite planete" Axiom is utterly wrong and mischievous. It can be proven wrong, by simple observation. All the material, matter minerals and elements, that we mine and transform, does not cease to exist in the process. And installing an equal sign in between these two, is a pure sign of dogmatism. Even in case of a nuclear explosion, only a marginal fraction of the fission material is actually transformed into sub atomic particles, and thus, irreversibly lost in a form of a cosmic radiation. Or in case of Helium, have density low enough to escape the gravitation force of the Earth. In all other cases, the matter only shape-shifts it's form. The fact, that we don't extract the Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and synthesise carbohydrates to keep us warm, and in motion, needs to be viewed purely utilitarian. It simply provides the most benefits to all involved, to drill and extract instead of any other way. And before you say, but how about the nature. Nature does not have a consciousness, people do. And the best way to end deprivation, starvation and misery is to progress to an extend, where abundance would enable us to abandon such ways of energy extraction. Even Marx, that you have mentioned, saw the need of capitalism to finally reach his utopian/distopian communism. There is simply none more effective way of resource allocation than free market economy.
The point is not that we simply lose, it's that "we are losing more than we are gaining". We won't talk about the economic aspects yet, just the part of science. The point is that we have consumed so much resources more than the time for it to be "reversed" (I don't know if I used the right word), the speed for the natural resources that we are using it right now simply can't catch with our needs anymore. It would take million years to have another mines with coals. And even in your example there is a problem: not all types of form that material have can be used with current technology or simply our biological needs. Coal, for example, can only exist due to so many conditions, it's not simply just bury some type of dead animal or plant and wait for million years to come. Natural liquid can be a circle with rain and river stuff, yes, but what if it's an acid rain? The point is that we are producing so much type of material that can break the whole eco system because it's inhabitable for the type of natural life we are living in. That's the whole point of Finite Planet.
@@dangtuandung2423 Now i am glad that you've mentioned coal, because that is a bright example. Coal is exactly one of many resources, that humans found, used, and are abandoning as they progress. "A need or problem encourages creative efforts to meet the need or solve the problem." someone said. You simply can not know, what would have happened, if all the coal have had magically disappeared overnight. That is why, i call this dogmatism. Same as the "No planet B", cuz it has to be said " No planet B, yet".
I spend most of my time doom-and-glooming about this sort of stuff in my own head, it's always quite relieving to hear you discuss these issues so cheerily, almost optimistically, while at the same time not diluting the gravity of the situation.
Thanks Ellie and Johanna for interesting discussion!
Huge fan ma'am!
I appreciate the nuanced approach to surrogacy. It's possible to acknowledge our biological nature without being a reactionary. In any case, nice to hear more advocacy for the UBI, which I think would at least engender a much nicer form of capitalism, and perhaps even more than that.
Why is it acceptable to deliberately deprive a child of its connection to its biological mother? Why is it acceptable to deal with children as if they are a commodity? Does a child have any intrinsic rights when it comes to surrogacy?
First of all i want to say, that i deeply respect and love your work, but polemic is true essence of philosophy, right?
So, I think that using the "Finite planete" Axiom is utterly wrong and mischievous. It can be proven wrong, by simple observation. All the material, matter minerals and elements, that we mine and transform, does not cease to exist in the process. And installing an equal sign in between these two, is a pure sign of dogmatism. Even in case of a nuclear explosion, only a marginal fraction of the fission material is actually transformed into sub atomic particles, and thus, irreversibly lost in a form of a cosmic radiation. Or in case of Helium, have density low enough to escape the gravitation force of the Earth. In all other cases, the matter only shape-shifts it's form. The fact, that we don't extract the Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and synthesise carbohydrates to keep us warm, and in motion, needs to be viewed purely utilitarian. It simply provides the most benefits to all involved, to drill and extract instead of any other way. And before you say, but how about the nature. Nature does not have a consciousness, people do. And the best way to end deprivation, starvation and misery is to progress to an extend, where abundance would enable us to abandon such ways of energy extraction. Even Marx, that you have mentioned, saw the need of capitalism to finally reach his utopian/distopian communism. There is simply none more effective way of resource allocation than free market economy.
Revolution is not a way, and will always lead to blood shed, misery and totalitarianism. Don't gaze into the abyss too much guys...
The point is not that we simply lose, it's that "we are losing more than we are gaining". We won't talk about the economic aspects yet, just the part of science. The point is that we have consumed so much resources more than the time for it to be "reversed" (I don't know if I used the right word), the speed for the natural resources that we are using it right now simply can't catch with our needs anymore. It would take million years to have another mines with coals. And even in your example there is a problem: not all types of form that material have can be used with current technology or simply our biological needs. Coal, for example, can only exist due to so many conditions, it's not simply just bury some type of dead animal or plant and wait for million years to come. Natural liquid can be a circle with rain and river stuff, yes, but what if it's an acid rain? The point is that we are producing so much type of material that can break the whole eco system because it's inhabitable for the type of natural life we are living in. That's the whole point of Finite Planet.
@@dangtuandung2423 Now i am glad that you've mentioned coal, because that is a bright example. Coal is exactly one of many resources, that humans found, used, and are abandoning as they progress. "A need or problem encourages creative efforts to meet the need or solve the problem." someone said. You simply can not know, what would have happened, if all the coal have had magically disappeared overnight. That is why, i call this dogmatism. Same as the "No planet B", cuz it has to be said " No planet B, yet".