What would be the most important thing than humans should try to achieve in priority in your opinion ?

[Ken Fabian]

Above - Should have been "achievable" not "achievement". I need to proofread before posting.

I think over-population is a more intractable problem than decarbonising energy; I think we can educate and make contraception available and encourage but not regulate, not without costs that go beyond merely economic. Doing the best we can for the population we have and expect to have has to continue, even at risk of failure but the trade offs between the economic development that makes fertility a choice and resource constraints that make overpopulation a problem... is a problem.

[TheVat]

13 hours ago, mistermack said:

The carbon problem is only a small part of the damage the current population levels are doing to the planet and it's genome. The main ones are habitat destruction and species extinction. 

A leading cause of habitat destruction (e.g. coral reefs, temperate zone forests, etc.) is warming, caused by CO2 rise.  And the carbon rise is caused by a vast array of human activities that also cause collateral damage in addition to changing the atmosphere.  When we extract carbon for fuel, boreal forests are razed, mountains are flattened, groundwater contaminated, seashores ruined by spills, and on and on.  So, no, it's not a small part.   

[CharonY]

In addition, carbon production is a decent indicator of resource use, which in turn in related to things like habitat loss. 

Moreover, often habitats are not destroyed to fulfil the immediate needs of the local population, but in order to produce goods and food items for rich countries. The average US-American consumes 20 times the amount of meat as the average Ethiopian. 

So following this logic

  

14 hours ago, mistermack said:

While I'm fond of humans, I don't value them so highly that they are worth the extinctions they are causing. We are far to self-centered putting our own comforts over the existence of others. 

The most effective way is to abolish lifestyle and reduce populations of affluent nations first.

[Intoscience]

On 12/22/2022 at 7:17 PM, iNow said:

Maybe if you eat right and exercise 

Would certainly help towards reducing the obesity pandemic that is gripping the USA and many other "privileged" western cultures. 

On 12/21/2022 at 7:48 PM, Moontanman said:

Can you give us a link to this, I'm not trying to be combative but this would seem to be nothing but a conservative talking point with no basis in reality other than fear mongering.

I haven't a link, it was an example I saw where a parent was addressing the education board at a school in the USA. 

On 12/21/2022 at 7:48 PM, Moontanman said:

How far is too far and who decides?

When an over corrective measure is used that introduces further issues without successfully addressing the cause of the original issue.

Or when the original intent is misrepresented and used as a weapon for other agenda. 

Or when common sense goes out of the window and a society is left with confusing and conflicting ideas. 

Change is a great thing and should be encouraged, supported and implemented, provided the change improves.  

 

On 12/21/2022 at 5:50 PM, Phi for All said:

So, I shouldn't drop the baby. Got it.

I was waiting for this response. It's an assumption many make wrt privilege (among other things), that we'll automatically over-correct if we even try to correct. I'm reminded of the joke: What if climate change is a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing? 

Funnily, I expected a similar response from you also, great minds and all that...

I see no problem with correcting mistakes, learning from them and future prevention, that's my point. 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Change is a great thing and should be encouraged, supported and implemented, provided the change improves.  

This is the same as the grandad paradox in time travel fiction; it's impossible to predict causality in a complex model. Possibly the best predictive model we have is meteorological, while it work's very well at predicting tomorrows (jan 4 2023) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse, it's next door to impossible to predict next year's (jan 4 2024) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse.

So we're back to the fundamental question of this thread, what is the best thing for humanity?

If we can answer that, then we, at least, have a start point of a model that can start to try and answer the OP.

[Genady]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

what is the best thing for humanity?

I believe that such a thing does not exist. There are many different "bests", for different groups of people.

[dimreepr]

25 minutes ago, Genady said:

I believe that such a thing does not exist. There are many different "bests", for different groups of people.

Indeed, that's part of the reason why, the OP is unanswerable

[Intoscience]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This is the same as the grandad paradox in time travel fiction; it's impossible to predict causality in a complex model. Possibly the best predictive model we have is meteorological, while it work's very well at predicting tomorrows (jan 4 2023) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse, it's next door to impossible to predict next year's (jan 4 2024) rainfall and temperature in Stonehouse.

So we're back to the fundamental question of this thread, what is the best thing for humanity?

If we can answer that, then we, at least, have a start point of a model that can start to try and answer the OP.

Not really is it. We can make predictions based on data and previous observations. The more data we have then the more likely the prediction is to be reasonably accurate. Yeah sure there is always the possibility of things occurring unexpectedly, there is sometimes that which we did not account for... 

The whole point of weather forecasting is to try and attempt to predict what we have to deal with in the future. Its not going to be 100% accurate, but over time the predictions become more successful, in part based on the data from previous reports where patterns can be ascertained. the further forward we want to forecast the less accurate the prediction is likely to be. But based on the historical data we can likely rule out certain situations.  

We have a fair bit of data and the results of previous actions in human history. So we should be able to ascertain to some acceptable degree the best course of action going forward. There is going to be a learning process even with this sure, also there maybe some sideways or backwards steps to take (re route) to get back on course. But doing nothing, or worse, heading too far off course is not moving forward. 

56 minutes ago, Genady said:

I believe that such a thing does not exist. There are many different "bests", for different groups of people.

Well yeah, what is best for each individual is not going to be equal. But there are aspects that benefit all. For example a less violent society, a more effluent society, reduced disease in society... we can formulate a list that bears improvements for all, some more than others granted. But improvement for one at the cost of nothing to others can be said to be an improvement regardless.

You can't please all the people all of the time.

 

[Genady]

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

we can formulate a list that bears improvements for all

If we're not talking about the "best" or the "most important" (re: OP), but rather about a list of generally good things, sure. Perhaps, a very long list.

[Intoscience]

33 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, that's part of the reason why, the OP is unanswerable

I wouldn't say its "unanswerable" I would suggest that there is no one right answer.

You are never going to achieve Utopia, that's an impossible goal and possibly fallible for all the reasons you have mentioned on this thread. But one should ask, is society a better place to live than it was 100/200/500 years ago? Cause if it is, and the general consensus is it is, then I would argue that we are continuingly improving things for humanity and have been doing so for years. What I fear is that this continuing improvement may plateau, and worse start to decline for all the wrong reasons.    

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

If we're not talking about the "best" or the "most important" (re: OP), but rather about a list of generally good things, sure. Perhaps, a very long list.

Then dimreeper is correct, and the question in this context is unanswerable.

There can not really be any "one" thing, though one could argue extinction since it appears we are destroying the planet.  

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

is society a better place to live than it was 100/200/500 years ago? Cause if it is, and the general consensus is it is

Only if this society and this consensus exclude Onge, Jarawa and many other peoples who cannot vote anymore.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I wouldn't say its "unanswerable" I would suggest that there is no one right answer.

You are never going to achieve Utopia, that's an impossible goal and possibly fallible for all the reasons you have mentioned on this thread. But one should ask, is society a better place to live than it was 100/200/500 years ago? Cause if it is, and the general consensus is it is, then I would argue that we are continuingly improving things for humanity and have been doing so for years.    

OK, answer this; in the last 2,000 year's, what is the single most important change?

[Intoscience]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

Only if this society and this consensus exclude Onge, Jarawa and many other peoples who cannot vote anymore.

Ok, so this should go on the list of improvements - Equal opportunity for all. Maybe even the number 1 "best" thing for humanity. 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

OK, answer this; in the last 2,000 year's, what is the single most important change?

I could argue many but I don't have data to back any answer up, though I was asking you if there has been continuous improvement, and if there is....? I would probably argue that advancements in medicine, disease control etc... Which could be a sub section of the general "technological" advancements within the past 200 years.   

Edited January 3, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

19 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

advancements in medicine

Just as an example, even such an "obvious" thing has its caveats. Thanks to advancements in medicine, J. Stalin lived very-very long. There are/were millions of people for whom it was very bad. There were thousands more for whom it was just in time that the medicine failed when it did. I'm sure you can come up with lots of examples like this.

[TheVat]

It may go better for societies if all social reform is recognized as experimental in nature.  If education allowed people to recognize the complexity of modern societies, and that the success of any proposed alteration is not guaranteed. (This might also reduce the utopian expectations of some)

 

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

 I haven't a link, it was an example I saw where a parent was addressing the education board at a school in the USA.

So you are assuming that parent knew shit from shinola? Just because some individual is upset about conservative BS doesn't make them an expert or even moderately knowledgeable. Most conservatives are woefully under educated on the subjects they espouse and only repeat crap they have heard from conservative sources. Often they make crap up out of whole cloth and repeat it as "truth" such testimonies are rife with nonsense told as absolute truth. BTW, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to individual rights, conservatives are always wrong. 

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

When an over corrective measure is used that introduces further issues without successfully addressing the cause of the original issue.

Or when the original intent is misrepresented and used as a weapon for other agenda. 

Or when common sense goes out of the window and a society is left with confusing and conflicting ideas. 

Or when conservative's heads explode because they can't dictate reality to everyone. 

 

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

It may go better for societies if all social reform is recognized as experimental in nature.  If education allowed people to recognize the complexity of modern societies, and that the success of any proposed alteration is not guaranteed. (This might also reduce the utopian expectations of some)

 

This is also true for most policies. Societies and communities are changing in many ways (demographic, economic, technological etc.) so policies that had a known effect in the past may have slightly (or significantly) different impact at a later point in time. As such ideally the outcome of policies should be constantly monitored and evaluated.

5 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Most conservatives are woefully under educated on the subjects they espouse and only repeat crap they have heard from conservative sources. Often they make crap up out of whole cloth and repeat it as "truth" such testimonies are rife with nonsense told as absolute truth. BTW, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to individual rights, conservatives are always wrong. 

While much of that stuff currently comes from the right-wing ecology of the internet (they seem to be better organized in some ways), it should be noted that a lot of misinformation is a consequence of modern (social) media consumption and how algorithms are pushing outrage over information. It is not as such a matter of lacking education anymore, it is a deliberate system wit which facebook and co make their money. We are officially in a post-information age.

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, Genady said:

Just as an example, even such an "obvious" thing has its caveats. Thanks to advancements in medicine, J. Stalin lived very-very long. There are/were millions of people for whom it was very bad. There were thousands more for whom it was just in time that the medicine failed when it did. I'm sure you can come up with lots of examples like this.

Like I said no change is going to please all people all of the time. Change for improvement is about the greater good. (i'm sure dim will come back with "what is the greater good?")

15 hours ago, Moontanman said:

So you are assuming that parent knew shit from shinola? Just because some individual is upset about conservative BS doesn't make them an expert or even moderately knowledgeable. Most conservatives are woefully under educated on the subjects they espouse and only repeat crap they have heard from conservative sources. Often they make crap up out of whole cloth and repeat it as "truth" such testimonies are rife with nonsense told as absolute truth. BTW, conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to individual rights, conservatives are always wrong

I'm assuming nothing. The parent was speaking in an audience environment in front of a panel of education board members. It wasn't some person spouting off to a news reporter or on social media. No one in the room contested her statement so one could argue that there was probably some element of truth in it. 

The point is, there are people out in the world who believe that this situation is acceptable since they truly believe the rights of the male teacher Identifying as a female trumps everything else. 

Just to clarify, I'm not from the USA and I don't have a political opinion on any other country outside of my own.  

16 hours ago, TheVat said:

It may go better for societies if all social reform is recognized as experimental in nature.  If education allowed people to recognize the complexity of modern societies, and that the success of any proposed alteration is not guaranteed. (This might also reduce the utopian expectations of some)

 

 

 

 

 

+1

Edited January 4, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

there are people out in the world who believe that this situation is acceptable since they truly believe the rights of the male teacher Identifying as a female trumps everything else. 

Some of us just find it courteous to simply accept them as a female teacher and recognize that doing so inflicts no harm to others or to their kids… but us refusing to let go of the male label does, in fact, do measurable harm to that teacher, and also the broader lack of cultural acceptance provides a permission structure for the more unhinged among us to attack and carry out violence against them since they’ve been dehumanized so much that some see them as no different from rats and vermin. It’s just a female teacher. That is all. No need for any special tap dancing, torches, nor angry chants… which also happen in local school board meetings when they’re not trying to ban books or advocate against vaccination during global pandemics. 

[Intoscience]

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Some of us just find it courteous to simply accept them as a female teacher and recognize that doing so inflicts no harm to others or to their kids… but us refusing to let go of the male label does, in fact, do measurable harm to that teacher, and also the broader lack of cultural acceptance provides a permission structure for the more unhinged among us to attack and carry out violence against them since they’ve been dehumanized so much that some see them as no different from rats and vermin. It’s just a female teacher. That is all. No need for any special tap dancing, torches, nor angry chants… which also happen in local school board meetings when they’re not trying to ban books or advocate against vaccination during global pandemics. 

So you have no problem with a male teacher identifying as a female being present in a girls changing area? 

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Like I said no change is going to please all people all of the time. Change for improvement is about the greater good. (i'm sure dim will come back with "what is the greater good?")

Dim does not need to ask that, because if it is so, i.e., if no change is going to please all people all of the time, then a "greater good" does not exist. What exists is a "good" for some people who choose to call it a greater good.

[Intoscience]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Dim does not need to ask that, because if it is so, i.e., if no change is going to please all people all of the time, then a "greater good" does not exist. What exists is a "good" for some people who choose to call it a greater good.

So what you are saying then, that there is not point in making any changes because the "greater good" (pleasing all people all of the time) cannot be achieved? 

So advancements in medicine should not continue because as a result you may save the life of a dictator who then might go on to kill more innocent people? 

I would argue that the greater good is what is determined by general consensus as a benefit for society as a whole. Giving all the minority groups equal opportunity amongst the majority is one for starters. Equal opportunity can benefit whole societies by creating diversity which otherwise would be missed. A child which would otherwise miss the opportunity of a good education may go on to be the next Einstein, this then benefits society as a whole in many ways, including morally.    

Edited January 4, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So what you are saying then, that there is not point in making any changes because the "greater good" (pleasing all people all of the time) cannot be achieved? 

No, what I am saying is there is no point to strive for a "greater good". That was what I said in the beginning of this thread, many eons ago: there is no global good, but many local goods. Striving for a "good" is good enough and anyway is all that can be done since the other "good" does not exist.

 

11 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

the greater good

does not exist, as well as

 

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

general consensus

and

 

12 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

a benefit for society as a whole

do not exist.

All the "goods" are local, temporary, relative, and carry with them unpredictable effects.

[Intoscience]

49 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, what I am saying is there is no point to strive for a "greater good". That was what I said in the beginning of this thread, many eons ago: there is no global good, but many local goods. Striving for a "good" is good enough and anyway is all that can be done since the other "good" does not exis

Ok, it seems we are describing the term greater good under differing definitions

49 minutes ago, Genady said:

do not exist.

All the "goods" are local, temporary, relative, and carry with them unpredictable effects.

Even so we should continue to improve things for society in general. Agreed, some maybe all the above as you say, but I still see no reason why we should not continue our efforts, after all (Vat mentioned earlier) society is a complex and dynamic system that requires dynamic and diverse ideas to promote the "greater good", I think the aim should be to attempt to improve the wellbeing of all society members as the umbrella goal but the harsh reality is that all is most likely unachievable.  

Edited January 4, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So you have no problem with a male teacher identifying as a female being present in a girls changing area? 

I have no problem with female teachers being in female areas

Also, rules about kids changing areas ought to be consistent regardless of gender, cis or otherwise.