This is philosophy, and the philosophical aspects of environmental
controversy are ...what?

I am not a scientist, or even close, and claims with statistics put
me to sleep.

And, btw, I also talked my way out of jury duty--"I read about the
bribery case in a newspaper," which was actually true: But I also
didn't really want to have to judge the defendant's actions.

This alarming/alarmist article is hopefully "crying wolf" and
propaganda.

Since I don't know, I will not argue technical esoterica about the
issue.

Either side may persuade me depending on how i feel after lunch,
though common sensical prudence is generally on the green side imho.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080526/mckibben

On May 15, 8:57 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

Philosophy’s ultimate purpose is disciplined reflection on life’s
“big” questions, universal questions about the meaning of Being that
have occupied human beings since the dawn of history. These questions,
simply put, are “What are we?” and “Why are we?” That is, what is the
ultimate nature of the universe we live in and what does it mean to be
human in it? These animating questions immediately generate more
detailed questions in metaphysics (what is ultimately real? Why should
there be anything at all?), philosophy of religion (is there a mind at
the foundation of things and is it accessible to us?), ethics (what
belongs to living a good life and what values are worthy of our
allegiance?) and aesthetics (what is the nature of beauty and the
basis of artistic discrimination?).

http://www.mercer.edu/philosophy/aboutphi.html

Another big question is "what is knowledge" and all that. I think this
question raised in the article is about how to "justify an ethical
standard applied to something about the Earth" The dilemma is
metaphorical...

AGW does introduce an issue new to philosophy:

No other species ever survived without controlling it's waste.

Are people going to be different?

Bret Cahill

"Bret Cahill" aol.com> wrote in message
news:8659a707-9128-433d-be9f-fd46b3863a91@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Well, it's not really a new issue, but it does introduce
a new species of gibberspeak from Greenolas. The
things they pull out of their collective (not individualist)
ass! It serves as a cautionary tale of philosophy: Don't
Let this Sophistry and Goofiness Happen to You.

What the hell are you talking about? Hardly a post of
yours goes by without some statement of arbitrary horseshit,
speaking of uncontrolled waste.

What species has ever attempted to controll it's[sic] waste?
I suppose cats try to bury it. Is that why they survived?
What about dogs? I suppose some of them eat their waste,
but that's just gross. This just in on the dinosaurs:'twas waste
that killed the beast.

On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:26:00 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

I think 'finite' is not the best choice. While true, it does not convey
what is more the issue which is sustainability. Sustainability recognizes
a regenerative system so not so linear or closed as 'finite'.

Ecology is of course balance. We live, think, breath only because of a
human inclusive, physical, ever changing balance that is self-sustaining
or 'it just is there'. Problem is as far as anyone can tell, it wasn't
always 'just there' and by all indications, even if humans never existed,
it will not always be 'just there'. In this way, the human friendly
system is finite. Change happens, no matter what humans or bears or
anything else might do or not do. OK, so what?

The answer to this is philosophy because the consideration here is
basically nothing more, as you say, than a life and a death and what to
do in between and how to do it.

"Robert Cohen" msn.com> wrote in message
news:e796033f-07ea-4e22-bf11-0d5285afcacd@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Have we yet found the wisdom to live within nature?
Or is Nature about to reassert her power over us?

My hobby is complexity science, which attempts to connect all
the disciplines with a single scientific language.

Dynamics of Complex Systems
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Self Organizing Systems Faq
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

So instead of using statistics, let's try to use examples from other fields
as analogies.

The concept of 'tipping point' is the key question in global warming
...where is that 'point'? And what happens once we reach it?

On May 17, 9:02 am, "jonathan" write.instead.net> wrote:

On May 17, 11:28 am, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote:

On May 17, 1:30 pm, Robert Cohen msn.com> wrote: