Should You Save the Planet? - Philosophy Tube
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 09. 2014
- Climate change and environmental damage are occurring, but do you have to do anything about it?
Ethics Playlist: • ETHICS
That very old, old episode on saving the planet (the quality is dire): • Why should we save the...
Subscribe! czcams.com/users/subscription_c...
Facebook: PhilosophyTu...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
Suggested Reading:
Simon Caney, “Human Rights, Responsibilities and Climate Change,” Chapter 11 in ‘Global Basic Rights’
John Broome, ‘Climate Matters: Ethics in a Warming World’
My reply to that whiteknight comment: PhilosophyTu...
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: 'Show your Moves' and 'Pamgea' by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
I always find the accusation of SJW and White Knighting to be idiotic. Social Justice is a good thing. And "white knighting" as it pertains to a male respecting and arguing for female rights is also a good thing. Its a lame insult meant to turn a positive quality into a negative one.
I think it's a good thing as well. My critique would be the delivery of it. Most people who identify as "SJW" typically use shame and virtue signaling to get others to act how they would like, which almost always puts others who do not currently agree on the defensive, and probably be counter-productive. I think a softer approach would work far better. Try to understand the motivations of the other person, and make sure that whatever solution you are proposing satisfies those motivations.
I'm not from the west and when I heard the term SJW I had no idea it was used as an attack or a bad thing. Because social justice is a good thing and warriors are grave and I was confused as to why the sjw cringe compilations would give so much respect to the people they were supposedly trying to mock
Are White Kmights are Uncle Toms?
I feel that the pressure of "trying to save the world" should be distributed equally, starting off with the HUGE corporations, not with the middle class, I mean Burning aviation fuel in aircraft or even piloting huge massive container ships which burn crude oil should get more blame compared to us, the middle class because they burn through more fuel.
The thing is, people can and do juggle the numbers around to make anything seem good or bad for the environment, the thing is, the government said that trains are the cleanest form of transport.... If everyone used them, if not then they become worse polluters then taking the car.
Sometimes I get really mixed messages when it comes to this subject but from what I can tell is that saving the environment is a team effort, something which requires everyone on the planet to cooperate together to make it better for everyone.
indeed but every ones an ass hole at time so wont likely happen
In the western world we tend to have the view that nature is a carefully crafted machine, made by a controlling being. This could lead to the idea that everything will eventually be fixed, or that it doesn't matter because this isn't the life that is important. From birth we are kind of coerced into this idea that we are alone, trapped inside our own bodies. If you think of yourself in the way that an ecologist might, you may consider yourself a small part of a large system, and that what you are doing at any given point is actually what the universe is doing at that given point in time and space. The idea that you are only a wave in a large sea might foster the idea that all beings are related. That Me is actually We. I'm not claiming spiritual ties to all beings, just an alternative way to look at our existence. This idea, at least for me, fostered a kind of compassion for other life.
Your comment really resonates the Jaina philosophy that not all life rather all existence is equal.
Leaked is really the wrong word to use in describing those celebrity photos. Stolen is more appropriate.
Brian Webber I quite agree. The script covers leaked nudes in general though, not just those ones.
You are just putting out one great video after another.
Thanks Olly
"Should you save the planet?" - It's like asking "Should you save yourself?"
I mean, we LIVE on this planet. It's our home. Our mother.
Who burns down their own house? Who kills their own mother?
indeed plus we are not the only race on the planet at some point apes or dolphins will become sentient we should give them a chance to live on mother earth and maybe get to space and meet us again before earth die by natiral means
It's quite clear to me that at the level of individual autonomy we are *clearly* obligated to take actions that will effectively slow climate change. The interesting question is "what actions will be effective?" I really don't believe that recycling, shying from corn, or many of the other every day choices that could affect change if they were taken up by a significant number of people translate to change.
The main players in the world, and the greatest environmental sinners, are the cysts of money/power that steer the economy. Already we can see that even in the best case scenario, where every person could be seen frantically flattening card board boxes and tin cans after work, we would see little change. Until, that is, we rejected those societal constructs that the *most* dear to us. Transportation, electronics, cheap meat and bread are those things that only a sliver of the population would be willing to part with; and the jobs that all that consumption creates would be missed by the all of us.
What I mean is: WE do not cause climate change, our inflated needs do. And since our needs are inflated because of the adaptive will manifesting as the economic power (in this case) then actions against it, unless taken by an equal adversary, are merely token minutiae. Recognize the caveat, though; if an adequate will were to arise then respect and sensitivity for the environment could be integrated to a significant degree. But only then.
That being said, let me take some of it back. Let's agree that the only actions that can directly slow the rate of climate change are those that build the desire for that into the zeitgeist. Almost exclusively they are forms of activism, unless activists can raise an army behind the banner of mother earth. Recognizing that the most effective activists are those who show tokens of support for their own cause *then* I can admit that those token actions can be effective, but only in that respect.
I LOVE how you refute all those "Arguments from..."
I for one, don't believe that we have an individual duty, as I support a more pragmatic approach. The important thing is not "who's at fault" or "are you contributing", the important thing is the actual effekt on the environment. The problem with this individual approach is that it puts responsibility on to the individual and not on the system who shaped or created said individual. If a person thinks themselves to be morally justified because they don't contribute to global warming, or contribute less, they might be less prone to get together in organizations and try and change the system - which is what actually makes the difference.
Secondly, not everyone has the mental nor material means to actually "vote" in this matter. If electric cars, for instance, are a lot more expensive, then the middle/lower classes might not be able to buy them. So not only might this individual thinking damage organizational methods, but this line of thinking simply isn't applicable as a solution to the actual problem.
To illustrate the point:
imgur.com/F5w9nQX
Seeing the world as I grew older, I watched my peers do bad things, act in negative ways toward each other in a heard mentality. My mother smoked cigarettes from age 21-65 and has had emphazima for the rest of her life. I watched her cough up 'lung cookies' and have difficulty breathing for many years. I learned from her mistakes and never picked up smoking. I learned from my brother's mistakes of drug use and drinking to excess and I never did drugs or drink to excess. I learned from my father's mistakes in not taking care of mom to get her help when she needed it and from his mistakes on not stopping the abuse she put toward me. I then learned right away to not be abusive towards others. I also learned from my peers. I learned from the bad teachers in my schools, which then later I continue my education freely. I learned from observing my surroundings. I calculated what works for me to make my life simpler and better that would later help others as they came into my life. A chain reaction of good actions....Now, with 7billion humans on this planet, still making a basic impact on it's environment negatively due to culture processes of learned actions (monkey see, monkey do), it will take maybe two generations to realize what our elders had caused is something we don't need to repeat in the sake of tradition. However, there's a bigger issue which humanity has no control over what so ever....Human kind is so argent of itself that it has the audacity to think that it has any impact at all. This blue/green ball in which we are spinning around on in a galaxy is a biosphere of life. The Planet is a living, breathing, moving and feeling being. Well, in which connects to its whims and actions to better or worsen life, has consequences of its own actions through destruction into creation. No matter what we do in supposedly messing up this spherical home planet we have, Earth and the forces of nature itself, will in time shake us off like fleas. When nature does this, there is NOTHING we can do about it and to think we can is what can cause us to experience the worst consequence of all existence - poor actions towards each other cause our demise.
i remember finding an old ranger rick magazine from when i was little. it went on about saving the environment by using reuseable water bottles and lunch boxes and such. in elementary school we had to "research" and write a few paragraphs about how we personally can save the environment. i do everything i can today to reduce disposables, just to keep a clean conscience. but it pisses me off that the blame was put on me as a 7yo child.
Wondering if you could maybe do a video on Wittgenstein or put that as an option that people could vote for? Could generate some pretty good discussion :).
0:42 the greatest example against the argument from futility I can think of would be garrun laggen, where they don't give a damn about the odds.
The Planet will continue with or without us, the question we most answer is: "Should we save ourselves?".
As part of this wonderful and rare event in the Universe known as Life, I choose to live in a way in which I can help preserve it, although others do nothing for our future, because for me is the thing that matters the most.
I think individual blame is not possible while large corporations and governments continue to do much more harm that all the individual people added together.
Clarification: If everyone stopped harming the environment individually, but we kept all that corporations and governments harm, the overall effect would not change significantly. The only way where individuals added up would be able to stop harming the environment is to collectively choke those corporations and governments into stopping their harm, but that just won't happen. What can happen, is that we can force those big groups to stop on their end at first, and that would trickle down to the individuals pretty fast, possibly ending the problem alltoogehter.
I think the use of finite natural resources comes down to a basic economic argument of demand and supply. If you don't use your "fair share" of resources, it's not necessarily the case that they'll be used by someone else to exceed their fair share - just that they'll be used by someone as part of their normal fair share later on in time. If you see your neighbour recycling, it doesn't mean you'll go and dump your garbage into his bins (or at least I hope you don't...)
While it's useful to use less natural resources, I think the central point of the argument is that some resources are finite, and they will run out eventually regardless of reduced usage. So the best way to save the planet would be to make an active effort to transition to using resources which we consider practically infinite (like sunlight), which has to mainly come from governments and corporations, but individuals can play an active role too. There's some interesting ideas about futurism and post-scarcity economies. For practical purposes, I think the first thing the world needs to do is process waste water correctly.
Of course we DON'T have to save the planet! It's like when an old lady falls and we are there, but we don't help her, I mean, she can stand up by herself, RIGHT? I believe selfishness is one of the reasons. Although some may say it's not our responsibility to save the planet, "I'm not littering like my neighbour does, and he's lazy even to take the trash out!". It is also because some may put other "responsibilities" before taking care of the enviroment, like, having work done and I don't care if I drink 2 plastic bottles in the meantime. And then there are the ignorants, not the ones that don't care, the ones that REALLY don't know they are damaging the enviroment by doing certain things. MUST we save the enviroment? Yes, it would be the best course of action, but then it comes the weakness of will theory, it's the best thing to do? Yes, do we do it mandatorily? you have to set your mind on it and/or maybe make a habit of it. Consideration is the key.
A 9 year old video calling out the older videos’ production quality feels super bizarre.
The desirable state of affairs is for everyone to do their part. If you don't do yours, then it is impossible for that state to be. This implies that you are preventing the desirable state by not doing your part, which is reason enough to do it.
I think individuals have the power to change the mass mindset of the society. Whereas government groups and corporations can only use technology to reduce the environmental harm, if a group of people collectively decide to be more environmental, and it becomes a social norm, then the effects of the larger group would contribute to the overall effect.
I would prefer the 'resource curse' video - I don't particularly care about celebrities anyway...
Perhaps you could also do some more videos on metaethics? Emotivism seems quite an apt topic for example...
Kant seems very relevant here as well. If your actions should be able to form the basis for good universal laws, then you should obviously do your best to save the environment.
With regards to overriding others autonomy and its relationship to debate and argument, would Kant say that the entire field of rhetoric (or at least all of the pathos and ethos, arrangement, style, and delivery stuff) is immoral? All of the packaging of your communication is arranged to interface with the non-rational aspects of your interlocutor, maybe just to better deliver your reasons to them, but if they were non-rationally disinclined to listen to your reasons and you use rhetorical style and delivery to influence them to be more inclined to listen to your reasons, to make them more likely to agree with what you're saying and less likely to reject it, is that immoral?
Hey Olly, interesting topic you brought up there.
It makes me think about a topic I think could be very interesting to cover.
It is a friend of mine that support the idea of "The Voluntary Human Extinction", the idea of this movement is not having kids (or adopt orphans).
In this way mankind would just die out (not suicide) and earth could then recover (since we are the species causing the most harm), the fauna and flora could then live "better".
I don't support this idea at ALL. But it could be interesting if you could say what you think about that idea?
Thanks a lot!
P.S: What I told here is just brief explanation, you might want to check it out on the internet.
Please include some philosophers. We're here to learn!
They're in the suggested reading section of the description!
It seems to come down to whether people think the resources they use are valuable and should be used thoughtfully, or that they're entitled to them and don't have to justify how they use what they use.
For next week the looking at nudes looks good, I think it's pretty obvious, undermining autonomy and privacy, treating them like objects, etc but it would be interesting to see if what less obvious reasons there are.
I'd like for us to return to environmental ethics at some point, maybe focusing on if we have an obligation to more than not harm but do good for the environment, especially where it would require some level of sacrifice.
I am very late to this party, but I have noticed in a lot of your videos you talk about whether something is morally good or bad, and whether we have a moral obligation to do or not do something, and there appears to be an implication that if we conclude that we do have a moral obligation to do something, then we should do it. I would be interested to hear your discussion of morality when we step back a bit.
So for example, for each moral question, like "Should we take individual actions to save the planet?", "Should we avoid watching pornography?", "Should we avoid eating meat?" etc, within the scope of that question we may come to a very clear view of what the more moral action is. However, when you step back and consider how to live your life in the most moral way, you will find that most individuals do not have enough time, money, and energy to take the moral course for every action. At this point you have to weigh up which issues are more important. (You talked about something similar in the "Which charity should you choose?" episode.)
Now it could be said that this is a different question - how to live a moral life, rather than what is the moral decision to make in a particular circumstance. On the other hand, no moral decision is made in a vacuum, so does it not then form part of the morality of the decision to consider how to weigh your moral priorities? (Echoing the old ought implies can here.) So considering for instance the decision about individual actions to save the planet, some might take the view that if you have the choice between spending time rallying mass action, or spend the same time sourcing bamboo straws, the former is comparatively better morally because it might make a more effective impact, and therefore the right choice. Others may instead say that the latter makes a more direct impact and therefore better. We have to consider as part of this that the moral decision for a billionaire, for example, might be very different from the moral decision for someone struggling to make ends meet.
So I would be interested in seeing this discussion sometime. 😊
Do both videos! But first do the resource curse video first
If one person thinks their contribution to be too small or insignificant to have any real affect at all, then the hole group of people that thought that way have a collectively greater impact. Morally, it would be doing the right thing to want to help the earth and the people in it by making your small and insignificant attempts at saving the world, and if everyone believed that no matter what the outcome is, it's better to be of some helpo than none at all, then the outcome would be positive because so many peoples small contributions would ultimately result in something larger.
This video misses the greater point. Which is that we do have a responsibility, but that responsibility is to hold the handful of corporations responsible for 80% of pollution accountable. Those same corporations have lobbied for over 50 years to stress our responsibility to recycle and pick up our trash, exactly because they want to avoid being held accountable. If we all became vegetarians over night and all stopped using plastic, and all started driving electric, well actually things would probably get worse. As we would all buy new cars, the production of which is really bad for the environment, electricity is still generated mainly with stuff like coal and oil, Paper and cardboard bags and packagings cost about 50 times the co2 to make as their plastic counterparts, and well, becoming vergitarians is the only win there. But even if that wasn't the case, if we each brought our own carbon footprint to zero, all 7 billion of us (which most of us can't begin to afford) then well over 80% of pollution would still be happening.
So I guess... Seize the means of production?
I believe we do have an individual responsibility to try and curb our destruction. Large corporations, which do the majority of polluting, do so to meet the demand of consumers, meaning demand is the best way to change their behaviour. If you implement government policy to change their behaviour then they will look for a way around it so this is sometimes not as effective, unless that way around it pushes them to make a more environmental decision.
For something like energy production gov intervention which makes renewable energy more attractive (carbon pricing for example) can push investment towards other means, such as solar or wind. So in this instance what we do will have little impact, and what governments do is important. Though if we demand clean energy this may also impact.
When it comes to other forms of consumption our choices can change what is produced. I went vegan a few years ago for ethical and environmental (so also ethical) reasons. Since doing so I have encouraged others to widen the variety of food they eat and not shy away from a veg meal, simply by being around them and opening their eyes to foods they didn't know existed. So in this instance, a personal change has had a flow on effect. It is a drop in the ocean on total demand change, but it has made more of an impact than doing nothing and has not cost me anything so is a net gain from a utilitarian perspective.
I'd just like to live how I like to live. However that happens to instantiate, harmful or helpful is irrelevant to me.
Dear Olly,
I have a response on the futility argument. In 2010 a documentary on the lives of Brazilian wasteland workers/rag-pickers was released titled 'Wasteland', in this documentary a rag-picker gives a very profound statement about individual responsibility towards the environment saying that '99 is not 100 and just 1 more will make that 99 into 100'. Now let's try and apply this to the 1000 punches example you gave if I as a person was involved somehow in that ordeal as a person who has the opportunity to land a blow on the poor fellow I should consider that maybe, just maybe he can survive the 999 other punches and the one that finally kills him could be mine and hence even as a tiny single individual on this planet I do have a responsibility towards nature.
On the consequential argument I offer the classic Kantian response that doing our bit for the nature should not be judged by how much we actually contribute towards the cause but rather we should act in an environmentally friendly way simply because the intrinsic 'value' the righteous act holds. It shines like a gem in itself.
Apart from that Olly I have a slight problem with the title of this video "Should You Save the Planet?" this implies that the planet is actually going somewhere and we have it's fate in our hands. The George Carlin (who I regard as part stand up comedian & part philosopher) admirers among us will understand when I say that the planet is a self healing organism and we humans are the disease. It is not the planet which is in danger, the planet will heal itself rather it is the human species which is in danger. Furthermore, the idea that we can 'save' the planet stems from the Idea that we control nature. Since the enlightenment era the Occident has detached itself from nature, as Akeel Bilgrami professor at Columbia University puts it 'turning nature into a natural resource'. This detachment has led to the widespread rape of mother nature that we witness around us today.
That's all I have for now, once again great video Olly. I really Enjoy all your videos please keep up the good work :)
Waiting for a response from you.
Don't take the title literally. It's implied to be the collective of humans on the planet.
I would rather ride a bus than drive a car, but I live in the middle of no where. I think the only green thing I do is recycle newspaper, cans, and bottles and reuse grocery bags.
The categorical imperative!
I think the fair distribution of natural resources can be quite tricky, since the lives of people around the glove are so different. In the western countries, each individual has quite the severe impact, but there's relatively few of us. If you look at India and China, most people live a relatively simple life and thus don't have such a great impact. But the populations in these areas are very large. So if everybody on Earth lived a 'western' life, enviornmental damage would be a lot more severe. But I don't think that you can demand that we all conform to the lowest possible standart of living that some person in this world might live. I guess in that case you'd have to look twoards indigenous people living in the amazonian rainforrest. The entire world can't live like that, that way of living only supports a fairly low population density.
The next question is whether it is fair to have a really high population density. In China they have tried to limit their population groth for quite some time, often with very harsh methods. But the size of the global population is a large part of the problem.
Do you accept people living (and by living shaping the enviornment to their needs) in every place in the world? Some places like the equatorial rainforrests are a lot more precious to the natural diversity and health of the global eco system than arctic tundras. So do you tell people in Sweden that they can spread out and grow, but people in Brazil should just kind of leave since they're harming the rainforrest? That doesn't seem all that fair to me.
In the end I feel like it's way too hard to say what a fair or unfair use of resources is. The only viable way seems to be that everybody does as much as they can and then we hope for the best...
RE: The "not all men" comment at the end. If I made a video titled "Why feminism is bullsh*t!" and pointed to that tiny tiny portion of feminists that have radical views that are harmful, what would you say to that?
If you respond that I was constructing a strawperson, and I respond that you're just saying "not all feminists", how do we determine who's actually committed a fallacy?
06:24 - So, you mean that it would be alright to try and convince people of something if they willingly went into a debate about it....
So it would go sorta like this:
Person 1:
"I am a person with my own personal views on subject X, but for the sake of coming to a greater understanding of subject X I am willing to put my views in a "submissive" position and therefore potentially have them changed if any given reasoning is solid enough."
Person 2:
"I agree to the same terms for the sake of understanding subject X better as well."
....I'd say I agree with this, but then something else is nagging me; when do you, or anyone, know when such a situation has been established?
Especially when we are talking about an environment outside of educational or intellectual contexts?
Can they ever happen?
If so, are there requirements that needs to be met for this to be possible?
Like a conversation similar to the one presented above?
If we have individual duties towards the environment, we could arguably encounter issues with the whole democratic concept of "all people are created equal".
An example often raised to me is that people on flights should pay _per weight_. Ergo, people who pack and weigh less will not have to pay as much as those who pack or weigh more. This derives from the idea that each kilogram on a plane requires a certain amount of fuel and results in a certain amount of CO2 omission, and lighter fliers believe that it is "unfair" for them to be charged the same fare as heavier passengers.
If we want to advocate for an "individual" duty to the environment it would be based off our carbon footprint. Heavier fliers would contribute more than lighter people who flew just as frequently. However some people cannot control their weight. Where does Kant's aphorism (ought implies can) sit on this? Would we be attaching a larger environmental/moral obligation to people who were, say, born with weight disorders or a larger bone structure? The conclusion would therefore be that said individual was not born "equal" to one who weighed less.
Similarly, our carbon footprint is increased by certain religious and lifestyle choices (which are harder to control than someone who cannot be bothered to recycle) such as diet, the ownership of pets, even having children.
As much as I think an individual duty to the environment should be followed, I think it has flaws under scrutiny.
Resource control, as it's a slightly more pressing issue.
We have a moral duty to provide for the welfare of nature
As a part of the universe, we have a responsibility to make the individual part that WE use, in good health.
Just as cheating/murder is wrong because a part of the universe being dishonest with a part of the universe.
A tree is as much us, as we are the tree.
We can use the tree for wood, but in making nature unhealthy we make ourselves unhealthy.
As Kant said, we should treat nature as an end, and not a means to an end.
Ah, poor ol' Midgley Jr. The leaded petrol thing I admit was not the greatest. But as far as I am aware he tried to redeem himself with the CFC's! It just didn't turn out quite as planned. And I guess, not content with choking the atmosphere, he later asphyxiated as a result another of his inventions. Karma.
So in this (rare) case, an individual acting on his personal obligation to preserve the environment was actually detrimental. Arguably more so than the first incident.
do you have a csolostomy bag tho?
I'd vote for the Resource Cure for the next episode. Sad this one wasn't the "are evolution and religion compatible?" video(in such general terms an easy yes) but it was a good video anyway.
On topic, how does one determine when they are doing enough to help the environment vs the things they are doing to harm it? Depending somewhat on where you live and where you get your power from simply using the internet could be contributing to the problem. I live in Phoenix, Az, a testament to mans refusal to admit when they are wrong because building a city here was just a bad idea. A lot of energy and resources are used making the Phoenix area a viable place to live, just living here contributes more to waste than living in most other place all other things being equal. I'm here for school; the particular school requiring me to live in this city for the time being. Am I morally obligated to prioritize whatever I can do for the environment over my education?
While as the video proposes in general that the answer is a pretty straight forward "yes" in terms of "does an individual have responsibility to protecting/saving the environment" the details of what a person should actually be expected to do are much more foggy.
I think that to work out if you should do more for the environment you should make an assessment using a utilitarian perspective. Look at how much a change will positively impact the environment and how much it will negatively impact yourself. This will change person to person and is fairly subjective, but if the positive impact to the environment is greater than the negative impact to yourself then perhaps it suggests a change should be made.
I vote for the Resource curse. It kinda touches on what im reading now... So my intentions are purely egotistic.
I agree with everything you said in the video, however I still argue from futility: negligible good, because crucially, there are more effective ways to do good than to reduce your individual harm. Just pragmatically, I think any solution to climate change will be systemic, not each person doing their own part at their own expense. Governments exist to solve exactly these sorts of issues - it would not be advantageous for any one person to give up their freedom to murder people, but it would be advantageous to everyone if everybody had to give up their freedom to murder. So really you shouldn't be pointing fingers at people for "not doing their part." You should be encouraging them to help to enact some sort of organized change.
It would be like, to extend one of your analogies, you were part of a firing squad and you knew a person was innocent. You live in a society where the jury carries out the sentence, and during the trial you voted to see the guy executed. Was it wrong to pull the trigger? Yes, but it was much more wrong to vote that everybody pull the trigger.
As for the next video, I am more interested in the resource curse, but since that video could be made at any time, whereas the leaked news video corresponds to a current event and is a one-time thing, I vote for the leaked news video.
Another interesting question would be, should you kill (or attempt sucid) to save resurces to save the Planet?
What if ones attempt to be environmentally friendly leads to less economic growth and therefore less money is used by governments and corporations to improve the environment and this leads to a net harm to the environment?
the government should not be trying to sell us things then and spent the money they can print on corps to help save the planet it in their best interest to heal it
CommanderM117 I don't think that the government sell things (I suppose that this depends on how you define "sell"). The government does already spend money on corporations, it's called infrastructure and law enforcement. It is in the best interest of corporations and especially governments to make sure that the environment doesn't kill people.
Arne Næss' work is pretty good. Well, if you view environmental value in an ecocentrist perspective-the most valuable aspect is the whole ecosystem. A sort of communitarian view of the natural world. This has some criticism understandably. This is in contrast to biocentrism, a derivative of Kantian moral philosophy that treats individual living things as the only morally valuable units.
Sorry, not really on the topic of the video, but nevertheless still relevant to environmental philosophy.
For me it's like a duty that is tacitly given to you by existence and evolution. They are telling you "ok, we're going to give you a big brain so you subsist, evolve or maybe do like a robot that surpasses your intelligence and keeps evolving for you, but don't kill yourselves then you would reverse all the evolution stuff and that would be bad." Speaking in this way, then yes, you should have the individual duty to not be an a hole with the rest of the human race. Even if you are hurting them a little it's still your responsibility.
You should do a video on the problem of future generations
***** That was the first environmental video was about!
The presumption that our species will survive an environmental catastrophe, and the implied notion we deserve to survive, has yet to be justified, either in theory or in practice.
Next question.
Since the leaked nudes seems like a given I would love to hear more about The Resource Curse. Also, the investment for the future is an interesting idea. Does this allow for eugenics? Or slavery? Or should we sacrifice general freedom for a greater tomorrow? This is a problem I found with utilitarianism, though most of my morality is still based off of it.
I think the question is closer to "should we save the humans?" Because if we had an individual responsibility with the planet that would mean that we should stop the source of contamination as a whole, that is us as a race, and in my opinion the best way to do that as fast as possible, is to pollute more, eliminating the human race. That is because after us, life will subsist even in a polluted world and it will keep evolving to something that maybe isn't as harmful to the rest of life as us.
If the question is about subsistence of the human race I think about it as if the humans were animals. Animals indadvertedly fulfill their duty with their race, procreating and not dying. The humans, as animals with the ability to stop their own existence, have the same individual duties as the normal animals, that is to procreate and not die, plus not killing the rest of the race by doing whatever it is they are doing.
For me it's like a duty that is tacitly given to you by existence and evolution. They are telling you "ok, we're going to give you a big brain so you subsist, evolve or maybe do like a robot that surpasses your intelligence and keeps evolving for you, but don't kill yourselves then you would reverse all the evolution stuff and that would be bad." Speaking in this way, then yes, you should have the individual duty to not be an a hole with the rest of the human race. Even if you are hurting them a little it's still your responsibility.
there seems to be an underlying assumption in the video: we need to be environmentally responsible for future generations (since we will not benefit from the harm avoided in the current time). if however we for eg do not have children, then does that mean we dont have to care or be interested? besides the way the env is isnt just caused by whats happening now. previous generations burnt coal and carried out all sorts of env destruction. so why is it this generation's responsibility to clean up their (and our own) mess? besides, it is a little malthusian to assume that science and progress in general will not come up with new ways to overcome all the harm.
Am I the only one who suspects there will be a lot of similar points in the "Should you look at leaked nudes," video as in this one?
The idea of climate change being morally bad is an egotistical one. What use has the individual for their environment? Nothing more than what the individual expects of it. In the West, we expect certain services such as electricity, heating and running water, but we chafe when we realize that the desire of these services is only to suit our comfort and not of some 'greater environment' such as the state or mother nature. In the less well-off communities of the world, the people will not hesitate to exploit their environment to their fullest advantage in order to survive. Did the first caveman with fire wonder if he was negatively impacting his environment with the heat and smoke?
The individual has a need for their environment as far as they are able to manipulate it to their advantage. Only society as a whole has a concern for ecology. The individual cares not for whether the planet lives or dies, the question is irrelevant. What is a planet but just a name for a collection of unique living creatures? The only thing the individual is practically concerned with is if they will be alive, and in this sense, the question to be or not be 'environmentally friendly' comes down to a simple question: Do you expect more than what you have currently of your living space? If so, then act to change it in whatever way that suits your desire. If not, then simply live.
I enjoy your videos usually, but in regards to this one, bite me.
I think we shouldn’t care and let the life of humans run its course. We are this smart it’s supposed to happen and we are to supposed to ruin our habitat and die off if it’s bound to happen then let it happen no point in prolonging the inevitable. The more we try to save ourselves the more our population increases causing more problems for us
This isn't just about the mind. Sometimes we need to think more beyond that. Do you believe nature who had always gave all our basic necessities not worth fighting for?
Really enjoyed your video. Let's check Avasva plans also
do the video about nude leaks next
I am all for The Resource Curse. It seems a better subject as a whole. After all, isn't it just immoral to look at leaked nudes? Especially thinking that by doing this you encourage this kind of intimacy violation? After all, those news sites get money for each person that visits their page. That's why they have those titles that pretty generate clicks for good-for-nothing articles.
I'd be really intresting if you could find arguments in favor of looking at leaked nudes. Otherwise it seems like it'd just be 5 reasons we shouldn't do what we already know isn't right...
radialwellendichtrin The script does actually examine a couple.
Philosophy Tube In that case I'm curious to hear them!
Individuals should be concerned with their consumption and the environment. If we're going to include non-human animals in this definition of "environment" then you're objectifying animals by eating them, or using their products. Lets not take away the fact that non-human animals are living breathing creatures that need a place to live as well as human animals. This is their environment as well as it is ours.
Philosophy Tube The words in blue which appeared next to you in this video, particularly "argumentation from..etc",`_` was that just "basic" philosophy reasoning or an example of argumentation theory?.
Aside: I vouch for "should you look at leaked nudes" for next time.
They're just a guide to help highlight what philosophical moves I'm making.
Lil O
“Save the planet”? The planet is fine we are the ones who are fucked.
People will take after your example. If everyone around you is eating beef, you'll be less likely to want to go vegan.
Voting for "Should you look at leaked nudes?"
Leaked Nudes Daaahh Duuuuuuhhh Duuuuuuuuunnnnnnnn
philosophy tube... firstly help united nations stop america military wars and selling weapons around the world... that solve one half of global dilemma on earth... only one action... stop america military aggressions in venezuela iran and syria... that one half of the earth saved at oje go...
Goviment don't like people no more
GO VEGAN!
The environment will sort itself out. After an environmental catastrophe humans will rapidly depopulate, when this happens the environment will recover. As the environment recovers humans will then repopulate, the environment will suffer, and hey presto, repeat ad nauseam....... well that or we go instinct, either way chill out about the environment it'll outlive us.
A nice point but not exactly an argument that works. Just because the effects may not be permanent doesn't mean a bad act isn't wrong. There are all these effects such as many species that aren't us dying out, the destruction of rainforest, etc. and even if they may recover it is still serious negative consequence. You can't justify breaking someone's arm just because it will heal later on.
Let Us Talk I'm not justifying breaking someone's are. A better analogy is I am on the Serengeti and see some lions hunting some antelope, is it justifiable for me not to interfere and save the antelope?
***** As a pragmatist 'morality' and 'worth' as ideas don't have a lot of meaning to me. I think 'right' to judge is not important, 'power' to judge is. Everyone can judge, but for most people what they judge is irrelevant, it really only matters what the people with the power to impose their judgements think. Falling into the former category I'm happy to judge everything, but I wouldn't worry too much about what I judge.
One thing that environmental destruction will do is make it harder for a lot of people in third world countries to find food and survive. It is not so much the macro perspective of human extinction that is the issue as the individual perspective of mass human suffering. People in pain constantly as they die if starvation, heat stress, environmental disaster.
If we can mitigate this then I think it is the morally correct thing to do.
jaocheu But when discussing lions killing antelopes it is not as if they are bringing them to extinction, it is a balanced ecosystem. Where as humanity's actions are more extreme, wiping out species, destroying entire ecosystems, etc. I think we are discussing what levels of destruction are justifiable. Lions kill antelope as a source of food for their survival, most of our actions have alternatives that are not as environmentally destructive.
Just end capitalism lmao
We're so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this shit. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
― George Carlin
That is an excellent argument, if you don't care about humanity.
The point I took from his message was that the expression was arrogant and misleading.
Most of us want humanity to stick around. That's the starting point of this conversation.
Nobody's worried about the rocky mass that makes up nearly every part of earth's mass. However, we do have to worry about the habitat and the natural enviornment all around the planet. We need to save the planed in the sense that the enviornment operates on a global scale, not just in your backyard.
What the planet has been through is irrelevant. We are sentient beings capable of moral actions, This obligates us to behave morally. A meteor just does what it does, so there's no point in arguing whether it should perform these actions.
You also need to consider that through our technological capabilities we've found ways in destroying the earth that aren't natural. We could release extreme ammounts of radioactive material, making life virtually impossible (at least on a higher level). We can release chemicals and materials that aren't found in nature and thus have a severely adverse effect on life here.
Your argumentation is analogous to claiming that murder is totally ok, since people die anyway.
It seems to me you've equated doing good with being self-righteous. What a sneering, cynical attitude to have, and one that shoots down attempts at doing good for no real reason. And who are you to decide what the motivations of environmentalists are? So arrogant. Maybe one day we will be gone, the planet will heal, and we will become nothing more than a blip of plastic in the ground. Even if that's the case, it doesn't excuse doing things that are wrong now in my opinion. And if we cause a runaway greenhouse effect, the planet won't recover, it will burn.
After this video I have to say.
This isn't a serious philosophy channel.