Page 2 of 2

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 1:10 am
by Aware-ness
Ierrellus wrote:
phyllo wrote:People tend to be short sighted and have narrow self-interest.

The current consumerist society encourages it.

The question is how to move away from that.

Good to see you are still around. What will it take for us to realize that we are consuming ourselves out of existence?

The unavoidable consumption is food and sustenance. And the need for shelter. And all that it takes to deliver and provide it.

Danial Quinn explains this relationship in his Ishmael series, and The Story of B ; the relationship between food and population ; basically, more food produces more population, and more consumers.

So, at bottom, we're eating ourselves to extinction. Or, when we reach a time when we can't produce more food, the population will level off -- as with all the critters, population is controlled by available food -- and consumption will level off.

I think we screwed up by removing ourselves from the food chain.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 2:43 am
by phyllo
Speaking of shelter:
America's biggest homes are getting even bigger.

The average size of homes built last year hit 2,600 square feet, an all-time high that surpassed even the housing bubble years, when homes averaged around 2,400 square feet, according to the Census Bureau.

But there is a clear difference between the days when everyone was building McMansions and what's happening post-housing crash.

First of all, the rich have gotten richer.

"If you had a lot of money in the stock market, it has doubled since 2009," said Stephen Melman, director of Economic Services for the National Association of Home Builders.

And many have used those riches to buy even bigger places, he said.

At the same time, relatively few first-time homebuyers -- the biggest market for smaller homes -- are able to buy homes, said Melman. Many young buyers are having trouble getting mortgages or are heavily in debt with student loans.

As a result, the market for smaller homes, of 1,400 square-feet and less, has shrunk to just 4% of homes built. That compares with 9% in 2005.

Meanwhile, extremely large houses -- 4,000 square feet and up -- have been making up a much larger slice of the new homes built.

Last year, these mega homes accounted for more than 9% of new homes. In 2005, they represented 6.6% of homes built.

Houses that are a little smaller but still verging on mansion territory, those between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet, made up 21.7% of new homes in 2013, up from 15.6% in 2005.

Not only are the homes bigger, they have more rooms as well. There's the obligatory playroom, the home office, the den and the FROG, or family room over the garage.

And, of course, few children have to bunk up in an older siblings' room these days. Only 59,000 homes built last year came with less than two bedrooms, compared with more than a quarter million with four bedrooms or more.

"It's like growth is accelerating," said Melman.

https://money.cnn.com/2014/06/04/real_e ... home-size/
New homes in Canada and the US are big and getting bigger. The average size of a newly constructed single-family detached home is now 2,600 square feet in the US and probably 2,200 in Canada. The average size of a new house in the US has doubled since 1960. Though data is sparse for Canada, it appears that the average size of a new house has doubled since the 1970s.

We like our personal space. A lot. Indeed, space per person has been growing even faster than house size. Because as our houses have been growing, our families have been shrinking, and this means that per-capita space has increased dramatically. The graph below, from shrinkthatfootprint.com, shows that, along with Australia, Canadians and Americans enjoy the greatest per-capita floorspace in the world. The average Canadian or American each has double the residential space of the average UK, Spanish, or Italian resident.

Those of us fortunate enough to have houses are living in the biggest houses in the world and the biggest in history. And our houses continue to get bigger. This is bad for the environment, and our finances.

Big houses require more energy and materials to construct. Big houses hold more furniture and stuff—they are integral parts of high-consumption lifestyles. Big houses contribute to lower population densities and, thus, more sprawl and driving. And, all things being equal, big houses require more energy to heat and cool. In Canada and the US we are compounding our errors: making our houses bigger, and making them energy-inefficient. A 2,600 square foot home with leading edge ‘passiv haus’ construction and net-zero energy requirements is one thing, but a house that size that runs its furnace half the year and its air conditioner the other half is something else. And multiply that kind of house times millions and we create a ‘built in’ greenhouse gas emissions problem.

https://www.darrinqualman.com/house-size/

Totally unsustainable.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Thu Feb 20, 2020 3:10 am
by phyllo
calap.jpg
calap.jpg (8.26 KiB) Viewed 3223 times

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:31 am
by felix dakat
phyllo wrote:
calap.jpg

True true but without systemic change of the nation states on a global level individual sacrifice will never be enough. So we must do what we can to change the system.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 2:57 pm
by phyllo
If enough individuals change, then the system will change.

Nations are not going to change until the general population changes.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:04 pm
by Aware-ness
Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting [at UN]

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:36 pm
by phyllo
The US is a hotbed of climate science denial when compared with other countries, with international polling finding a significant number of Americans do not believe human-driven climate change is occurring.

A total of 13% of Americans polled in a 23-country survey conducted by the YouGov-Cambridge Globalism Project agreed with the statement that the climate is changing “but human activity is not responsible at all”. A further 5% said the climate was not changing.

Only Saudi Arabia (16%) and Indonesia (18%) had a higher proportion of people doubtful of manmade climate change.

Americans were also more likely than any other western country polled to say they did not know whether the climate was changing or people were responsible – a total of 13% said this.

But despite these views, the great majority of US citizens do accept the science of climate change, with nearly four in 10 saying human activity was at least partly responsible, potentially with other factors, and a further third taking the stronger view that human activity is the dominant cause.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ional-poll

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:26 pm
by Ierrellus
Aware-ness wrote:Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting [at UN]

https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm

What struck me as noteworthy in this article is the mention of a large amount of food wasted while billions go hungry. This shows the extravagance of consumerism and the lack of care for others it generates. I do think wastes of consumerism is more of a problem than is the Malthusian scare about population exceeding the food supply. Some countries, China I believe, are already practicing ZPG.
More is the consumer's mantra, more things, bigger and better things, etc. Fewer people can opt for more things!

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 4:39 am
by Aware-ness
felix dakat wrote:
phyllo wrote:
calap.jpg

True true but without systemic change of the nation states on a global level individual sacrifice will never be enough. So we must do what we can to change the system.

I have to admit that I smoke a bowl to dull the impact of hopelessness in the face of this world. Shame shame, I feel for escaping.

With a 97% scientific consensus, that human activity is behind climate change, with little willingness to do much about it from power brokers, that could do something about it, what can I hope to do?

So daily I look out into this world, and cry. And I cry for my contribution to it. I conclude that if I really want to do my part, the best thing I could do is kill myself.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 12:08 pm
by xhightension

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 6:15 pm
by phyllo
Aware-ness wrote:
felix dakat wrote:
phyllo wrote:
calap.jpg

True true but without systemic change of the nation states on a global level individual sacrifice will never be enough. So we must do what we can to change the system.

I have to admit that I smoke a bowl to dull the impact of hopelessness in the face of this world. Shame shame, I feel for escaping.

With a 97% scientific consensus, that human activity is behind climate change, with little willingness to do much about it from power brokers, that could do something about it, what can I hope to do?

So daily I look out into this world, and cry. And I cry for my contribution to it. I conclude that if I really want to do my part, the best thing I could do is kill myself.
That's pretty extreme.

Maybe there is some scope for action somewhere between doing nothing and killing yourself.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Fri Feb 28, 2020 8:11 pm
by Aware-ness
phyllo wrote:Maybe there is some scope for action somewhere between doing nothing and killing yourself.

Well I burn wood for heat in the winter. So I'm spewing lots of CO2 into the atmosphere. And if I stopped this adding of CO2, I'd freeze to death, and my contribution would be discontinued.

But thanks for attempting to talk me out of killing myself. I seriously doubt I'm going to become a Popsicle. So climate change here we come. My immediate needs trumps climate change. And it's the same for the almost 8 billion others in the world.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 1:45 pm
by Ierrellus

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 1:25 pm
by Ierrellus
Can we rely on science and technology to save us from ourselves? Religions offering other worlds is not an answer.
Is the 12 year deadline another Y2K-type scare? I don't know. I only know that, if the prediction is true, we will have no choice but to face it together. We will have to live in a less favorable environment. There is no "planet -B" to escape to.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 4:58 pm
by Aware-ness
Ierrellus wrote:Can we rely on science and technology to save us from ourselves? Religions offering other worlds is not an answer.
Is the 12 year deadline another Y2K-type scare? I don't know. I only know that, if the prediction is true, we will have no choice but to face it together. We will have to live in a less favorable environment. There is no "planet -B" to escape to.

Aren't we living it up today, so they can die tomorrow?

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Sun Mar 01, 2020 5:10 pm
by Meno_
Aware-ness wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Can we rely on science and technology to save us from ourselves? Religions offering other worlds is not an answer.
Is the 12 year deadline another Y2K-type scare? I don't know. I only know that, if the prediction is true, we will have no choice but to face it together. We will have to live in a less favorable environment. There is no "planet -B" to escape to.

Aren't we living it up today, so they can die tomorrow?



Let's wait on how immune suppression to control population by drug inducement will allow the equitable balance to develop between natural and artificial conditions of production and cinsumption; to even the field, before jumping to hasty conclusions.
This supposed pandemic may or may not serve as a coming index to evaluate by.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:12 am
by Aware-ness
Meno_ wrote:Let's wait on how immune suppression to control population by drug inducement will allow the equitable balance to develop between natural and artificial conditions of production and cinsumption; to even the field, before jumping to hasty conclusions.
This supposed pandemic may or may not serve as a coming index to evaluate by.

What do you mean by immune suppression? Please explain.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:26 am
by Meno_
Ierrellus wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Way back in the 1960s Aldous Huxley wrote a utopian novel, Island. In that novel the sense of morality was ecological, a belief in finding human meaning in our inclusion in ecosystems, in our integral part of all life and matter. It is a morality of belonging by being. Is this type of morality the future of religion and science as one thing?
I think one could argue that many animist/indigenous/shamanistic religions had this in the past, and then also this exists in the present. Of course their science however empirical in many ways was not quite modern sciences, except when it was.

Ideas from religions of the past may be enjoying a new presence as many take a good look at the price of our exploitation of Nature and have hopes for a decent future for mankind. Pinker and others have written of tremendous progress in goods and services for people since the enlightenment. Problem is the progress excludes indigenous people.





I think it entirely possible that our immune systems have been effected not merely by ecological factors, but by biochemical agents released , accidentally, or otherwise, that invades lowered resistance, thereby causing virolous responses.


{Please see this response in the next block-sorry}

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:29 am
by Meno_
Aware-ness wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Let's wait on how immune suppression to control population by drug inducement will allow the equitable balance to develop between natural and artificial conditions of production and cinsumption; to even the field, before jumping to hasty conclusions.
This supposed pandemic may or may not serve as a coming index to evaluate by.

What do you mean by immune suppression? Please explain.



Sorry, my response was placed in the preceding block.

But to repeat: human immunity has been constrained to lower levels of resistance, some by ecological factors, and some by accidental or other means of release into the environment-of biochemical agents.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:49 pm
by Ierrellus
Can the coronavirus epidemic be in any way tied into global warming?

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 1:50 pm
by MagsJ
Meno_ wrote:But to repeat: human immunity has been constrained to lower levels of resistance, some by ecological factors, and some by accidental or other means of release into the environment-of biochemical agents.

You ain’t wrong Meno.. you are most definitely right.

I think I’ve talked on the topic enough here, over the years, so have nothing more to say, but only that I agree.. there is nothing moral about current ecological and economical initiatives and objectives, well.. not that many, at the very most.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 10:37 pm
by Aware-ness
Meno_ wrote:
Aware-ness wrote:
Meno_ wrote:Let's wait on how immune suppression to control population by drug inducement will allow the equitable balance to develop between natural and artificial conditions of production and cinsumption; to even the field, before jumping to hasty conclusions.
This supposed pandemic may or may not serve as a coming index to evaluate by.

What do you mean by immune suppression? Please explain.



Sorry, my response was placed in the preceding block.

But to repeat: human immunity has been constrained to lower levels of resistance, some by ecological factors, and some by accidental or other means of release into the environment-of biochemical agents.

Sure, there are some, maybe too many, that suffer from immunodeficiency disorder.

But are you saying that our collective immunity has been collectively lowered, so that our immunity can't fight Covid 19, Sars, Mers, so forth and so on, whatever pandemic comes along next? that the problem is that we just can't fight these viruses?

I read that Bats carry over 60 different types of coronavirus. Their immune systems must be much better than ours.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 2:21 pm
by Ierrellus
I seem to remember somewhere reading that a commune based on Huxley's Island existed. I cannot find any evidence of that on google. Be that as it may, communal living in the USA does not have a good track record. Capitalism is too alluring to most. The idea that you are what you possess is a difficult one to counter. In other words having speaks more to a persons sense of self-worth than even being.

Re: Ecological Morality

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2020 1:41 pm
by Ierrellus
The spread of the coronavirus is forcing us to realize we are one.