<Investment in Oil Exploration and Production -- An "Above Ground" Factor The Oil Drum First Principle: End Fossil Fuel Subsidies>
<DrumBeat: November 24, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 26, 2006>

188 comments on DrumBeat: November 25, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

oilmanbob on November 25, 2006 - 12:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ron Patterson, we are at least partially to blame for the conditions in the developing world. If we had a sane foreign policy that focused on actually aiding other countries instead of selling them munitions and committing acts of war, that focused on population control and education, sustainable development and medical aid we just might have a green and pleasant world. I guess I'm just an old hippy, but I actually try to break out of my narrow self-centeredness enough to help others. I don't see money and possessions as the best goal for me personally or for the world as a whole. And yes, I go to church ( Episcopal ) and believe that as my catechism taught me, sin is doing my will instead of God's will. We are supposed to be "faithful stewards" of creation, and to love one another as we are ourselves loved. And because of the insular nature of our conciousness, we are all sinners and need mercy and grace, and also ned to show it to others in our actions.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 25, 2006 - 1:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oilmanbob, thanks for the reply. You are not a sinner Bob. You, and I and everyone else, are only following our nature. The idea that we were born sinners in need of grace and forgiveness is the best idea orginized religion ever came up with, even though it is the most stupid idea that ever graced the pages of any so-called holy book.

I will not reply again to this thread. I tried, but failed in this instance, to follow my ideal of never argueing with religious people. They deserve to be ignored, not argued with.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on November 25, 2006 - 1:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wish these darn threads would let a person reply to the reply they were actually addressing. Ron, I agree that disagreement on grounds of religeous or spiritual beliefs is pretty useless in a peak oil discussion. And I also belong to the Episcopal Church-we believe that wearing white shoes before Memorial Day or after Labor Day is prohibited in the Bible somewhere in Leviticus or Dueteronomy or another of those books of the Bible no one reads. We're weak on homosexual bishops and original sin, but the term White Anglo Saxon Protestants is a polite description of our church.
  So peace, man.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on November 25, 2006 - 1:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I am honestly curious - do you believe in evil? Not hell, not god/s, not reincarnation/afterlife/soul, or any spiritual aspect at all, but simply evil.

It may even be in our nature, but is there such a thing as evil?

And you are welcome to say you don't believe in an abstract, religiously grounded framework, but my question is not based on an abstract, religiously grounded framework either, not that my curiousity requires an answer.

And to be fair - I definitely believe there is such a thing as evil, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists. I also believe that evil is not punished in any form in any supernatural sense, so believing in it doesn't make life more comforting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 25, 2006 - 2:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
And to be fair - I definitely believe there is such a thing as evil, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists.

Hehehe, that's funny!

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on November 25, 2006 - 3:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, here are a couple of more funny ones -

I believe in beauty, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists.

I believe in self-awareness, regardless of any explanation of what it is or why it exists.

'The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.'

A lot of discussions bog down in details - I was merely trying to avoid those detours.

Worse, a lot of discussions bog down because the words are not what is discussed, they are the means.

But my question was merely idle curiousity, nothing more.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 25, 2006 - 3:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, a definition of any word is an absolute necessity before any resonable answer can be given as to whether I, or anyone else for that matter, believe in it or not.

For instance, the tsunami of December 2004 killed almost 300,000 people. Was evil involved? If one says it was an act of God, how then can evil be denied for this event? See what I mean? But then I do not believe in God. Well, not a personal god anyway. As to a higher intelligence, I am an agnostic. At any rate I do not believe any kind of God caused the tsunami therefore no evil was involved. But if you believe in God, then he caused it and therefore he is evil.

But to answer your original question, I am a determinist. Not a genetic determinist, nor an environmental determinist, just a determinist. If you know what that means then you have your answer. If you do not, then look it up.

Ron Patterson

  • For more than 50 years sane voices have called for an end to the debate. Nature versus nurture has been declared everything from dead and finished to futile and wrong--a false dichotomy,. Everybody with an ounce of common sense knows that human beings are a product of a transaction between the two.
  • Matt Ridley: Nature via Nurture
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
expat on November 25, 2006 - 3:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Fair enough - another thing I believe in is free will, even if it is just along for the ride.

Which is why I also believe in evil - though I see a mistake in my question. I should have said do you believe humans commit evil - it never even occurred to me to describe any event not done by thinking beings (just limiting things here, nothing else) to be evil. The world just is, and only those elements capable of self-awareness and thus volition or choice can make moral/ethical distinctions which are more than merely metaphysical discussions.

No need to answer - you are quite right, a deterministic view is an explanation, and a valid one in itself.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oilmanbob on November 25, 2006 - 4:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
  Scott Peck, MD wrote an interesting book on the problem of evil. He's a fundementalist and I tend to discount his insights-but his definition was Narcicism(of evil). And he meant a clinical narcicism-being unable to distinguish the boundries between oneself and other people.
  A good example is the war in Iraq (my opinion) because we have killed nearly 700,000 humans over "Weapons of mass distruction", or "regime change", or bringing "democracy" to the people of Iraq, or whatever position the Kaliedescope of rationalisation has brought us to this week. What kind of narcicism makes us the rulers of the world and enforcers of morality? If that isn't evil, what is?
  And although I'm a Christian, I'm totaly sure that God is a lot happier with Australian Aborigines dancing at a fire in the bush and telling tales of the Dream Time than he is with any church or mosque praying for victory.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on November 25, 2006 - 5:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
a deterministic view is an explanation, and a valid one in itself.

Well, in a philosophy of decision a deterministic approach may be rewarding, but I'd like to point out to you a general problem regarding determinism. What was the first cause?

This question is particularly dazzling if one is into ontological determinism, i.e. not just as one views among many.

Many here probably know this, but for those of you interested in issues like determinism I'd like to add that quantum mechanics is probabilistic. Doing an identical experiment several times, one may get a lot of different results. But the distribution of results always stays the same, given that the experiments are identical.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on November 25, 2006 - 5:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Correction: philosophy of decision making
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 25, 2006 - 6:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, in a philosophy of decision a deterministic approach may be rewarding, but I'd like to point out to you a general problem regarding determinism. What was the first cause?

Determinism, in physics, deals with physical causes. And first cause is a problem. Determinism in philosophy deals entirely with acts of the human will! In acts of the human will first cause is not a problem. Think about it. You were determined to wish this or that because of some cause, and that cause had another cause, on back to infinity. (Before the human will existed.) Or, it need not go back near that far. The cause of your wish might originate entirely from the physical, like a storm or lightening bolt, and have no human cause. But your every desire must have cause. But since that first cause need not necessarily originate with the human will, yours or anyone else's, first cause is not a problem.

Just remember, when speaking of determinism in philosophy, determinism deals with acts of the human will and absolutely nothing else.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on November 25, 2006 - 10:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Strictly speaking topics like determinism isn't discussed within physics at all. Such questions sort under philosophy, and on that faculty they are certainly not limited to deal with acts of will when addressing determinism. I think most materialists only believe in bottom-up causality and therefore contend that questions regarding free will is properly addressed within the natural sciences.

(Many philosopher enjoy the Heisenberg uncertainly relation and the probabilistic quantum nature, and think the key to understanding free lie in those topics.)

But i understand what where you want. Free will in a materialistic reality is perhaps what most philosophers address. The context above was human behavior, and perhaps you're right, that first cause is not problem - i don't know. Either way, what's really being discussed here is the mind/body problem, a discussion that i'm not very qualified to discuss.

"Shut up and calculate!"

Paul Dirac when being asked philosophical questions about the interpretation of Schroedinger's equation. (from my memory)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 26, 2006 - 12:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Such questions sort under philosophy, and on that faculty they are certainly not limited to deal with acts of will when addressing determinism.

Dead Wrong! When you are discussing the determinism-free will debate, you are talking only about acts of the human will. Free will is acts of the human will by definition. You are talking about why you wish to this or that. Why you choose to do this or that. You are not talking about determinism in the physical world, you are only talking about acts of the human will. That is the very definition of free will!

Either way, what's really being discussed here is the mind/body problem, a discussion that i'm not very qualified to discuss.

Wow! You really are confused. The determinism-free will debate has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/body problem. How on earth did you make that connection? Whether the mind is seperate from the brain (body) has absolutely nothing to do with whether you have free will or not.

And you really do not need any qualifications to discuss the mind/body problem because if you believe they are two seperate things, then you are discussing faith, not science. Anyone can believe anything they wish where only faith is concerned. Science is an entirely different matter. There is absolutely no evidence that the mind is seperate from the body.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Papirus on November 26, 2006 - 1:22am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Please be a little bit more calm. I really enjoy your posts, which often is full of insight and overview, but sometimes it seems like you should learn to relax.

Dead Wrong! When you are discussing the determinism-free will debate, you are talking only about acts of the human will. Free will is acts of the human will by definition.

I referred to determinism in general, not suggesting that bricks and stones are subject to a free will debate. BTW the definition from Biology online does not explicitly tie free will to humans, and therefore seems to be more general than your approach in defining free will. (But for what it's worth, i tend to agree with you)

Wow! You really are confused.

I must admit often being confused, sometimes also on topics regarded as simple, yes.

How on earth did you make that connection? The determinism-free will debate has absolutely nothing to do with the mind/body problem.

You are somewhat correct, but stating that there is absolutely no connection is a bit strict. It's a very common connection to make and it felt natural for me to do. I did a google on "mind body problem", and observe for example that wikipedia also make such connection.

There are two subjects that, in connection with the philosophy of the mind, have aroused special attention: free will and the self....In the context of the philosophy of mind, the question about the freedom of the will takes on a renewed intensity. This is certainly the case, at least, for materialistic determinists.[1] According to this position, natural laws completely determine the course of the material world. Mental states, and therefore the will as well, would be material states bla bla bla

This is enough philosophy for me. If you insist, please correct me (preferably citing someone if possible) and I'll happily stand corrected.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Sunman on November 26, 2006 - 1:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, if every human action has a physical cause (as I understand the determinist position), isn't it somewhat silly of you to try to convince us of this? If the physical causes are sufficient, we will believe it in any case.

And even more to the point, as a determinist, why should you even care whether we share your point of view, since any consequences of our beliefs will will be irrelevant to any event that happens in the future.

Are you predetermined to care about inconsequential matters?

Tony Verbalis

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
beggar on November 25, 2006 - 4:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ron, you make good points and refer to some very good books -- I'll put them on my reading list!

I've read Susan Neiman's "Evil In Modern thought: An Alternative History of Philosophy" (Princeton, 2002).  It's a good one for all to read -- check it out!

Basic Outline:

1. "Fire From Heaven" -- Leibniz, Pope, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel and Marx.... Is the wish to be God the "Driving force behind much of metaphysics"? (p. 110) And is a need for certain Knowledge an attempt to be God?  Where does morality come from, if not from God?  Do we have values or "dignity"?  And so forth....Reason challenges religion....

2. "Condemning the Architect" Whoooo boy! Here we go...as a fundamentalist preacher's kid, this section was quite a ride of a read! -- Bayle, Voltaire, Hume, de Sade, Schopenhauer....interesting quote from Schopenhauer:

"Every fulfillment of our wishes won from the world today is only like the alms that keep the beggar alive today so that he may starve again tomorrow.  Resignation, on the other hand, is like the inherited estate; it frees its owner from all care and anxiety forever."

So we go from theodacy to a nihilism that expresses "the kind of decadence only rich men's sons enjoy." (p. 200 -- Note:  not "rich man's daughters"!)

3. "Ends of An Illusion" Nietzsche, Freud... the world is fukll of pain and of "obstacles that thwart our desires" and this is usually what we think of as "evil" or "bad."  We try to manage ourlives to get what we want in spite of this. Fulfillment of our desires is "good."

4.  "Homeless" -- Earthquake; mass murders; losses; intentions; terror (after September 11); Remains: Camus, Arendt, Critical Theory, Rawls; Origins: Sufficient Reason...

Neiman concludes that we do not find reason or meaning in the world, and we create it ourselves.

Most interesting is her treatment of the infamous "911" attacks (pp 281-288). Our shared morality tries to prevent death and fear.  Terrorism brutally violates that shared convention. Those who believe in God, Satan, and Demons felt their beleifs to be confirmed.  Some aboard flight 93 acted like heroes in light of our shared morality, and attempted to stop the spread of fear and death, even though they had little or no hope of saving themselves...?

My questions: Was this terrorism moral or natural evil?  Is there a difference? Why or why not?  Is "Shock and Awe" warfare good or evil?  Who can know beforehand whether an act of violence will do more to prevent death and fear than to incite further death and fear?

Are wars ultimately a matter of animals fighting over a carcass, with no moral element at all?

How does the problem of evil relate to peak oil?  Is peak oil good or bad, or simply the way it is?  Can human responses to Peak Oil be said to be good or bad, or are they simply whatever they are?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ThatsItImout on November 26, 2006 - 2:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Whoa, have you guys goen philosophical today! Gotta' love it, folks actually thinking about goals, values and aesthetics, the driving engines  (or as the guy who walked the walk as well as talked the talk, Albert Schwietzer said,, "What the West faces is essentially an ethical crisis."

Sadly, even he seems to have someone overlooked that great driving engines of philosophy, aesthetics, politics, organized religious dogma, engineering and design, and most of all economics....THE SHEER POWER OF HUMAN STUPIDITY.  Great philosophical question:  How often has what was seen as evil been nothing more than just plain stupidity?

Could it be that Schwietzer would have been more accurate to say, ""What the West faces is essentially a stupidity crisis."
Gotta' love it, then we could take things a bit less seriously and just enjoy the "play" of learning!  That sounds childish.  Indeed, our nation is becoming a nation of the old.  Playing at learning and design and taking care of each other is becoming a lost art.  

I have trouble trusting even an "old" kid who refuses to at play a little.

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thegoodshipkship on November 26, 2006 - 8:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hannah Arendt's banality of evil comes to mind.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
beggar on November 26, 2006 - 2:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
RE: "The banality of evil."

If one accepts the premise that good and evil are real, then Arendt's observations seem spot on to me.

If one accepts that "good" is the reduction of death, suffering, and fear, then "evil" might be seen as the proliferation of death, suffering, and fear.  Our culture is good to the extent that we do the first, and evil inasmuch as we do the latter.

Jacques Ellul points out that the problem of evil in our complex culture is that evil is so diffuse throughout that we are unable to effectively identify or address evil.

That fits what I call "intentional ignorance" which is a reduction of one's field of focus to include only the bubble of personal peace and affluence of one's tiny life.  Without context of the larger habitat as a reference, one's tiny "normal" life may be wreaking enourmous evil, especially together with others doing the same.

So evil is diffuse and banal and any who dare to point that out are marginalised or excluded from discussion. sometimes quite violently.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

188 comments on DrumBeat: November 25, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version