[INFJ] Did anyone ever stumble across a complete plan to save the world?

Regarding the original topic of this thread, this was quite an interesting read:
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/0...taught-me-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/

Very interesting that Kahn thought that the Malthusian predictions would be wrong and that he spent the rest of his life arguing against "Malthusian thinking" or how you want to call it. At least according to this article. I think thats the drawback of megalomania - you have to have a positive, idealistic mindset to even be able to come up with the extremely extensive predictions that he made. With a "negative" mindset, you could probably not successfully "dream up" large parts of our technological future like he did.

I mean, lol, not that I am not thinking about such things, of course I do, thats what I do fulltime. But from my experiences with people and what I think I learned about the average person so far I think that it is better to assume the worst regarding the future "development" of the world, especially regarding the population, resources and the environmental side, aka pollution, especially water pollution. Oh and of course, deforestation (etc. etc. etc.).

Furthermore, if you are in a leadership position, I think that you ALWAYS have to assume the worst. IMHO you just cannot sit back and say: "Oh, surely it will all work out on its own". NOTHING EVER works out on its own, it just falls apart if nobody takes care of it. Just ask a 100 year old computer that nobody ever maintained. Or a water pump in a 3rd world country some years after the "helpers" flew back to their countries. Or a democracy that was installed in a 3rd world country, a short time after the "installers" are gone.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
the belief that wisdom is something that is produced in a specific era, so it can get outdated and must be reinvented to fit modern conditions. It's like when people call something "medieval" to imply that it's automatically wrong. Everything old is supposed to move with the world, not move the world.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Of course the irony is that holding this view automatically implies that modern wisdom is also wrong, seen from the perspective of our descendants :D

There seems to be an idea around that something has to be novel and original if it's to be taken seriously, but that means discarding hard won wisdom that's valid for all seasons, just on the basis of fashion and prejudice. Complete folly of course!

I think this bit of wisdom from two and a half thousand years ago is very relevant to the topic of this thread. When people interfere with a system as complex as our world, we cannot begin to understand the interconnected set of relationships and consequences, or foresee all the harmful unintended consequences. It will be by stopping doing certain things rather than through positive action that the world will heal itself, all by itself: it's been doing that for hundreds of millions of years before we lot came along.

Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu - chapter 48

In the pursuit of learning, every day something is acquired.
In the pursuit of Tao, every day something is dropped.

Less and less is done
Until non-action is achieved.
When nothing is done, nothing is left undone.

The world is ruled by letting things take their course.
It cannot be ruled by interfering.​
 
@John K

“My man, for the love of God, don’t just do something, stand there!” :P

Sigh,
Ian
 
aeon said:
@John K

“My man, for the love of God, don’t just do something, stand there!” :p

Sigh,
Ian
Click to expand...
Or maybe less funny but closer…

“My man, for the love of God, don’t just stand there, stop doing something!” LOL
 
I think the world is quite fucked but we're gonna just have to wait for this long term cycle to play out. Give it another 5-15 years. Given how stupid our "leaders" are, I think it's gonna be sooner rather than later.

In the meantime I'm at least very grateful for the internet and all the amazing stuff you can learn for free as a relatively disciplined and curious introvert. Nothing is stopping you to learn, grow, lift weights and connect with others.

If this is the worst it can get, it's quite OK.
 
John K said:
When people interfere with a system as complex as our world, we cannot begin to understand the interconnected set of relationships and consequences, or foresee all the harmful unintended consequences. It will be by stopping doing certain things rather than through positive action that the world will heal itself, all by itself: it's been doing that for hundreds of millions of years before we lot came along.
Click to expand...
Assuming we don't take Lao Tzu too literally, then yes. If you eat a standard modern diet, it's almost guaranteed that eliminating parts of the diet is going to have better effects on your health than adding to it. But you still have to eat something to live, just like you have to do something to exist in a meaningful way. I wrote an unpublished article on this, and meaning, as far as I can tell, can only be found in narratives that lead up to something, which generally doesn't involve just lounging around in comfort while you wait for the day to pass.

It's important to be very clear about what those "certain things" are, though. Pushing for a zero-emission policy through moral pressure may heal the planet, but only because it sends civilization a few centuries back in the ensuing economic apocalypse.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
Assuming we don't take Lao Tzu too literally, then yes. If you eat a standard modern diet, it's almost guaranteed that eliminating parts of the diet is going to have better effects on your health than adding to it. But you still have to eat something to live, just like you have to do something to exist in a meaningful way. I wrote an unpublished article on this, and meaning, as far as I can tell, can only be found in narratives that lead up to something, which generally doesn't involve just lounging around in comfort while you wait for the day to pass.

It's important to be very clear about what those "certain things" are, though. Pushing for a zero-emission policy through moral pressure may heal the planet, but only because it sends civilization a few centuries back in the ensuing economic apocalypse.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you are right that Lau Tzu should be interpreted carefully. I think his statements are a bit like Christ's 'If your eye offends you pluck it out ...', which is a kind of parabolic hyperbola :D. But I think he would see the aggressive zero emissions target as interfering, rather than letting be. There is a kind of folly that assumes the solutions to major systemic problems are conceptually simple and can just be put into effect with enough resources. For example, in the UK the Government implemented an aggressive policy of promoting diesel cars about 15 - 20 years ago because they were believed to be environmentally superior to petrol vehicles. We know better now, and it turns out they were far more harmful than the petrol cars of their day would have been. I have my doubts about the batteries in electric cars for the same sort of reason. Another emerging example is a hint of evidence in the UK that COVID lockdowns have lead to significantly more excess deaths that the disease itself caused. And of course we are now seeing the economic consequences of putting all our economies on ice for 2 years and trashing our major currencies - now aggravated by the Ukraine war.

I'm just exploring a particular viewpoint here, rather than expressing a conviction, but I do wonder if all this greening the environment activity is just playing whack-a-mole.
 
I am beginning to entertain the idea that the majority contributing factor in a significant number of demonstrated human foibles is our species’ inability to conceptualize the long-term consequences of our short-term choices. I mean, I’m greatly widening my sense of the idea’s applicability.

That’s as true of our attempts to save lives as it is a person indulging in a weekend of hookers and blow. :p

We’re wired, neurologically, to live for today, and overall, that’s been good for survival from birth to fertility and reproduction, resulting in the next generation. That said, we’re smart enough to improve conditions and utilize modern medicine such that we tend to live longer than that, and so actually prove that we’re collectively absolutely fucking daft.

Cheers,
Ian
 
aeon said:
I am beginning to entertain the idea that the majority contributing factor in a significant number of demonstrated human foibles is our species’ inability to conceptualize the long-term consequences of our short-term choices. I mean, I’m greatly widening my sense of the idea’s applicability.

That’s as true of our attempts to save lives as it is a person indulging in a weekend of hookers and blow. :p

We’re wired, neurologically, to live for today, and overall, that’s been good for survival from birth to fertility and reproduction, resulting in the next generation. That said, we’re smart enough to improve conditions and utilize modern medicine such that we tend to live longer than that, and so actually prove that we’re collectively absolutely fucking daft.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...

The curse of 4 year mandates for our "leaders".

I'm starting to wonder if monarchy is not a better system. At least monarchs have a longer term perspective.
 
John K said:
Yes, I think you are right that Lau Tzu should be interpreted carefully. I think his statements are a bit like Christ's 'If your eye offends you pluck it out ...', which is a kind of parabolic hyperbola :D. But I think he would see the aggressive zero emissions target as interfering, rather than letting be. There is a kind of folly that assumes the solutions to major systemic problems are conceptually simple and can just be put into effect with enough resources. For example, in the UK the Government implemented an aggressive policy of promoting diesel cars about 15 - 20 years ago because they were believed to be environmentally superior to petrol vehicles. We know better now, and it turns out they were far more harmful than the petrol cars of their day would have been. I have my doubts about the batteries in electric cars for the same sort of reason. Another emerging example is a hint of evidence in the UK that COVID lockdowns have lead to significantly more excess deaths that the disease itself caused. And of course we are now seeing the economic consequences of putting all our economies on ice for 2 years and trashing our major currencies - now aggravated by the Ukraine war.

I'm just exploring a particular viewpoint here, rather than expressing a conviction, but I do wonder if all this greening the environment activity is just playing whack-a-mole.
Click to expand...

I think you're quite right. I cannot speak with any certainty about how grave the climate situation is but I have a feeling it's a bit overblown.

Meanwhile, the inflation and wealth inequality problems are very real, and everyone can feel it. Both are the consequence of ever expanding money supply without the proportional increase in real good/services/real value in the world.

Let's focus on this, shall we lads. But the unproductive class is addicted to all the free freshly printed money they're getting, that's the problem.
 
In the 19th century gold standard era, the way to exploit people was to underpay their labor, make them work inhumane hours, disrupt unions etc. It really was capitalists vs workers as Marx portrayed. But you couldn't devalue what workers earned trough inflation.

In the 21st century fiat standard era, the exploitation is trough money printing and inflation. Both workers and corporations are victims and are getting squeezed. The unproductive class (politicians, bankers, the already rich.) are the beneficiaries.

Marx was a smart guy and I'm sure that was he alive now, he would grasp the difference and adapt his thesis. The problems is his followers aren't on the same level and are still stuck in 19th century industrial England.

The only corporations that are doing well in this environment are those to the money printer (Tesla) or those that established a real monopoly or offer an essential product (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple etc.). The rest are getting squeezed by ever higher production costs and workers demanding higher salaries due to higher food/housing prices.
 
Last edited:
aeon said:
I am beginning to entertain the idea that the majority contributing factor in a significant number of demonstrated human foibles is our species’ inability to conceptualize the long-term consequences of our short-term choices. I mean, I’m greatly widening my sense of the idea’s applicability.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about long-term thinking as such, that's almost a human privilege. Animals don't work, but we do because future security becomes possible with self-awareness. It's more about the rising complexity when dealing with increasingly larger systems like the entire planetary ecology and its relation to 8 billion individuals and their actions. At some point, relevant ideas become incalculable on paper, but that doesn't mean they don't exist in abstract spread over those 8 billion brains participating in the market. That's theoretically the observation behind the invisible hand, which is probably the perfect economic analogy for doing less to do better.
 
Sidis Coruscatis said:
I don't think it's about long-term thinking as such, that's almost a human privilege. Animals don't work, but we do because future security becomes possible with self-awareness.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and? It's a human privilege but it doesn't mean we are necessarily good at it. I think it's undeniable that both on individual and collective level there is a lot of short term thinking.

It's a story as old as time. Ant vs Grasshoper.
 
aeon said:
I am beginning to entertain the idea that the majority contributing factor in a significant number of demonstrated human foibles is our species’ inability to conceptualize the long-term consequences of our short-term choices. I mean, I’m greatly widening my sense of the idea’s applicability.

That’s as true of our attempts to save lives as it is a person indulging in a weekend of hookers and blow. :p

We’re wired, neurologically, to live for today, and overall, that’s been good for survival from birth to fertility and reproduction, resulting in the next generation. That said, we’re smart enough to improve conditions and utilize modern medicine such that we tend to live longer than that, and so actually prove that we’re collectively absolutely fucking daft.

Cheers,
Ian
Click to expand...
I think we are also hard-wired to think of the future, which explains hoarding for eg. I think what has minimised the influence of this is our modern economies, which are largely constructed around immediate needs. The natural instincts are still there, greater in some and lesser in others imo, it’s just that it’s harder to manifest them in modern societies in the west.
 
philostam said:
I think you're quite right. I cannot speak with any certainty about how grave the climate situation is but I have a feeling it's a bit overblown.

Meanwhile, the inflation and wealth inequality problems are very real, and everyone can feel it. Both are the consequence of ever expanding money supply without the proportional increase in real good/services/real value in the world.

Let's focus on this, shall we lads. But the unproductive class is addicted to all the free freshly printed money they're getting, that's the problem.
Click to expand...
U just love that crypto don’t you lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top