Ecological Morality

[Ierrellus]

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?

[felix dakat]

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?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87zXvSCmSYk

[Aware-ness]

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?

Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World -- Michael Dowd
https://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Evolution-Marriage-Transform/dp/0452295343

[Ierrellus]

Huxley was wise enough to write into his final utopia the possibility of its failure. The possibility seems to rest on the fact that human thought is essentially self-centered, despite the religions that would teach one to be brotherly. Does holism stand a chance before the ideas of stark individuality, since the latter has given us scientific and technological revolutions which have improved our standards of living?

[felix dakat]

Huxley was wise enough to write into his final utopia the possibility of its failure. The possibility seems to rest on the fact that human thought is essentially self-centered, despite the religions that would teach one to be brotherly. Does holism stand a chance before the ideas of stark individuality, since the latter has given us scientific and technological revolutions which have improved our standards of living?

There does seem to be a growing consciousness yet Awareness shared this link with me that points the other way: https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/02/11 ... t-of-18th/

[Karpel Tunnel]

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.

[Ierrellus]

"For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone."--W. H. Auden

Error bred in the bone?

[Aware-ness]

Huxley was wise enough to write into his final utopia the possibility of its failure. The possibility seems to rest on the fact that human thought is essentially self-centered, despite the religions that would teach one to be brotherly. Does holism stand a chance before the ideas of stark individuality, since the latter has given us scientific and technological revolutions which have improved our standards of living?

Hey Ierrellus. Hope you are well.

I always enjoy Huxley. I haven't read Island. Sometimes novels touch on truths that non-fictions can't seem to express. It's just that novels throw needles in the haystack, hither and dither, that ya gotta find in there somewhere.

I see I can get Island for $3 for Kindle, at Amazon. I've got quite a reading load at this time. But if you said Island was a worthy read, I'd buy it.

What say ye?

And I see religion teaching brotherly, but it's a do as I say, not as I do. So far as I see, neither religion, science, psychology, philosophy, nor any thing as been able to tame human nature. It's very stubborn. And it can't seem to pull itself up by its boot straps. It perchance needs up from 'out there, up there' somewhere.

Yet according to Steven Pinker, in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined" something is getting there, where all those have failed. I think they work better when backed up by secular government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

[Ierrellus]

Thanks, Awareness. I think you would like Island although it is probably outdated by now. What interests me as both you and Felix have acknowledged is the problem of human nature. I don't buy the original sin idea; yet, there is something in us that's a lure toward the types of separations that cause destruction of hopes and ideals. Huxley wrote a dystopia "Ape and Essence" about this destructive nature of humans and was soundly criticized by others as "failure of an intellectual in time of crises." That prompted Island, that and a hope to remedy some of the social ills he found in Brave New World.
So is there "an error bred in the bone", a product of genes and memes? If so, how would you describe it? Does Pinker really offer a remedy?

[phyllo]

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.

[promethean75]

there's nothing that can be done to change that. i mean the existence of consumerism and its effects. even in a socialist market the same materialism (lifestyle, not the philosophy of) would exist and the desire would need to be met by a competitive market to produce commodities and services. you wouldn't get something like communist russia where only a few essentials were allowed by the state to be produced. the only noticable difference in the market would be the fact that companies were run and controlled by many people rather than a single owner. so a consumerist culture would still be there, and all the character defects that come with it it would be there too. 'fraid shortsightedness and narrow self-interests is inherent to human nature, and that it will always be fostered by the market - any kind of market - any kind of exchange of commodities and services.

the question should be; how can we organize six billion simpletons so that their shortsightedness and narrow self-interests doesn't interfere with the shortsightedness and narrow self-interests of the other simpletons. in other words, how do we create a peaceful coexistence between simpletons. well, for one you can eliminate one of the main forces responsible for making them hostile shortsighted and narrow minded self-interested simpletons; economic exploitation at the hands of the capitalist market.

forget about that nonsense of the 'engineering a new, better man' utopian myth that surrounds marxism. that was a bit of over-optimistic philanthropy on marx's part. not all of us can be 'the better man'. but you can, still, create a society in which simpletons create less problems while there's still enough freedom and incentive for exceptional individuals to develop and be properly rewarded for their talents.

see formerly elitist philosophers thought simpletons existed to be exploited, so that's what they did. but in doing so, two disasters resulted. one, the elitists had nothing to show for justifying that exploitation and instead became super-charged simpletons with a shit load of money they did simpleton shit with. second, they created an incredible burden on the already stressed out simpletons and turned them into walking problem-makers.

now we look at society and ask 'why was it done this way, when we coulda gotten the same results had we dunnit the socialist way and prevented all that extra bullshit from happening'. in other words, we woulda gotten the same net result - simpletons doing simpleton shit with their money - but minus all the unecessary social problems created by the divided classes in violent conflict with one another.

if you have any questions, don't ax a conservative or a liberal because they're gonna put a 'spin' on the answers. conservative'll tell you 'yada yada yada greatness wouldn't be possible in a socialist society', while the liberal'll tell you 'yada yada yada omg i am not a simpleton! that's insensitive and politically incorrect!'

the troof is, the conservative is not great and the liberal is a simpleton. ergo; the right and left are simpletons. look i'm trying to be realistic here... even if it means shattering your dreams about man. fact is, there will always be simpletons... and the only thing you can do is arrange a society in which everybody is simple together. no more capitalists parading around like they're the greatest thing since cheese whiz, and no more liberals bitching and complaining because they can't afford health care or tuition or a mortgage because the capitalist shitstick they work for is keeping all their money.

you want the troof, ax an anarchist. we have a bird's eye view on the whole circus and can tell you timeless troofs about it. all this nonsense started all the way back in b.c. same shit then, more complex now. better, more persuasive lies. philosophy and language are to blame for this, btw.

[Aware-ness]

Thanks, Awareness. I think you would like Island although it is probably outdated by now. What interests me as both you and Felix have acknowledged is the problem of human nature. I don't buy the original sin idea; yet, there is something in us that's a lure toward the types of separations that cause destruction of hopes and ideals.

I grew up with original sin, and just accepted it as 'that's the way it is,' to explain how people can be hateful and evil to others. Now I see the wrongs others do to others as just the way of not evolved enough human primates ; Jared Diamond's "Third Chimpanzee." And ya can't train a dog to meow. As I see it : I can't change the weather, politics, women, or human nature.

So is there "an error bred in the bone", a product of genes and memes? If so, how would you describe it? Does Pinker really offer a remedy?

I would describe it as I would describe the nature and instincts of all the other animals and critters.

And Pinker's answer is : "The Leviathan," which is :

The Leviathan, a state and judiciary with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, can defuse the temptation of exploitative attack, inhibit the impulse for revenge, and circumvent the self-serving biases that make all parties believe they are on the side of the angels. Commerce is a positive-sum game in which everybody can win; as technological progress allows the exchange of goods and ideas over longer distances and among larger groups of trading partners, other people become more valuable alive than dead, and they are less likely to become targets of demonization and dehumanization.

The Leviathan theory, in a nutshell, is that law is better than war.
--Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined . Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Of course he has much more to say about it.

Thanks for responding Ierrellus.

[Ierrellus]

Is human nature an evolving conflict between altruism and the selfish gene?

[promethean75]

And ya can't train a dog to meow

demonstrably false argumentum ad ignorantiam

[Aware-ness]

Is human nature an evolving conflict between altruism and the selfish gene?

Interesting question. I'm not sure I understand it.

The selfish gene, as I understand it, is about the evolution of genes. Then again, we're now editing DNA. Maybe we can find the selfish gene and remove it, thus producing altruism.

But presently, isn't altruism a matter of cultural evolution? Pinker thinks that it's the Leviathan, or civilization with secular laws enforced by government sanctioned policing agents. If so, we're not completely evolved yet. More work needs to be done.

Maybe I just don't understand the question. And this idiot needs further explanation.

Thanks for making me thing about it. Hope to hear more about it.

Harold

[Ierrellus]

The selfish gene theory is that humans, or for that matter all living organisms, are merely the gene's method for producing more genes or of perpetuating itself. Altruism is a social meme and is grounded in co-operation, perhaps culminating in what Hobbes calls the Leviathan. So the two paths of humanity toward a future appear to me to be individualism and co-operation. Pinker's history of the human enlightenment seems to point to benefits of both rugged individualism and cooperative endeavor. What seems to be missing are the facts that evil can require cooperation and that the biosphere is in peril.

[felix dakat]

On the evolution of compassion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wFyRGilp4 We're in a race between the expansion of zero sum-ness and our capacity for destruction of the environment we live in.

[Ierrellus]

On the evolution of compassion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4wFyRGilp4 We're in a race between the expansion of zero sum-ness and our capacity for destruction of the environment we live in.

Thanks, Felix. That is a good reference to the human dilemma. Isn't the concept of the enemy also a genetic/memetic outcome? Is it zero sum position?

[Ierrellus]

Is human nature an evolving conflict between altruism and the selfish gene?

Interesting question. I'm not sure I understand it.

The selfish gene, as I understand it, is about the evolution of genes. Then again, we're now editing DNA. Maybe we can find the selfish gene and remove it, thus producing altruism.

But presently, isn't altruism a matter of cultural evolution? Pinker thinks that it's the Leviathan, or civilization with secular laws enforced by government sanctioned policing agents. If so, we're not completely evolved yet. More work needs to be done.

Maybe I just don't understand the question. And this idiot needs further explanation.

Thanks for making me thing about it. Hope to hear more about it.

Harold

If you can read and understand Dowd and Pinker, you are certainly not an idiot.

[Ierrellus]

there's nothing that can be done to change that. i mean the existence of consumerism and its effects. even in a socialist market the same materialism (lifestyle, not the philosophy of) would exist and the desire would need to be met by a competitive market to produce commodities and services. you wouldn't get something like communist russia where only a few essentials were allowed by the state to be produced. the only noticable difference in the market would be the fact that companies were run and controlled by many people rather than a single owner. so a consumerist culture would still be there, and all the character defects that come with it it would be there too. 'fraid shortsightedness and narrow self-interests is inherent to human nature, and that it will always be fostered by the market - any kind of market - any kind of exchange of commodities and services.

the question should be; how can we organize six billion simpletons so that their shortsightedness and narrow self-interests doesn't interfere with the shortsightedness and narrow self-interests of the other simpletons. in other words, how do we create a peaceful coexistence between simpletons. well, for one you can eliminate one of the main forces responsible for making them hostile shortsighted and narrow minded self-interested simpletons; economic exploitation at the hands of the capitalist market.

forget about that nonsense of the 'engineering a new, better man' utopian myth that surrounds marxism. that was a bit of over-optimistic philanthropy on marx's part. not all of us can be 'the better man'. but you can, still, create a society in which simpletons create less problems while there's still enough freedom and incentive for exceptional individuals to develop and be properly rewarded for their talents.

see formerly elitist philosophers thought simpletons existed to be exploited, so that's what they did. but in doing so, two disasters resulted. one, the elitists had nothing to show for justifying that exploitation and instead became super-charged simpletons with a shit load of money they did simpleton shit with. second, they created an incredible burden on the already stressed out simpletons and turned them into walking problem-makers.

now we look at society and ask 'why was it done this way, when we coulda gotten the same results had we dunnit the socialist way and prevented all that extra bullshit from happening'. in other words, we woulda gotten the same net result - simpletons doing simpleton shit with their money - but minus all the unecessary social problems created by the divided classes in violent conflict with one another.

if you have any questions, don't ax a conservative or a liberal because they're gonna put a 'spin' on the answers. conservative'll tell you 'yada yada yada greatness wouldn't be possible in a socialist society', while the liberal'll tell you 'yada yada yada omg i am not a simpleton! that's insensitive and politically incorrect!'

the troof is, the conservative is not great and the liberal is a simpleton. ergo; the right and left are simpletons. look i'm trying to be realistic here... even if it means shattering your dreams about man. fact is, there will always be simpletons... and the only thing you can do is arrange a society in which everybody is simple together. no more capitalists parading around like they're the greatest thing since cheese whiz, and no more liberals bitching and complaining because they can't afford health care or tuition or a mortgage because the capitalist shitstick they work for is keeping all their money.

you want the troof, ax an anarchist. we have a bird's eye view on the whole circus and can tell you timeless troofs about it. all this nonsense started all the way back in b.c. same shit then, more complex now. better, more persuasive lies. philosophy and language are to blame for this, btw.

Society is an abstract contributor to the problem of man's inhumanity to man. Anarchy may reveal the problem but offers no remedy for it. The roots of the problem are to be found in the evolution of genes and social memes. We need to foster memes of empathy and compassion toward each other in order to challenge our genetic heritage.

[Ierrellus]

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?

[felix dakat]

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?

Probably a catastrophe or even a major series of catastrophes that involve large segments of the world's human population. I mean you would think that the 6th Great Extinction would be enough. But people are consumed with their narrow self-interests. In the year 2020 the best thing Americans can do for the environment is to vote Donald Trump out of office and vote in a president who will reverse his destructive environmental policy and institute a more aggressive policy of international cooperation to curb climate change then has been previously proposed.

[phyllo]

Australians are calling for changes as a result of the fires.

Flooding in Canada produced a similar call for changes. Once-in-a-hundred-years floods are happening every 5 years.

Who knows how much traction that will get or how long it will last.

[Ierrellus]

When an economy is good people tend to forget ecological morality. We now have a decent economy in the U.S along with a president who does not believe in the science of global warming. But a price will have to be paid for getting the goods at the expense of Nature. The hubris of having is yet to meet the nemesis of depravation. It is good to see there are some countries realize this and are seeking to address the old Man holds dominion over Nature lie of exploitation.

[Ierrellus]

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.