Is the World on a Downward Trajectory?

[Truthseeker]

Mankind pronounces God redundant, and declares himself the highest power in the universe.

Fortunately some men and women, maybe just a few in each generation, in placing spiritual values above material aspirations, keep us collectively connected to the divine energy and purpose.

You really think so?

How do the few do this? Through books, through other mass media? We would have to listen to them first, wouldn't we? Further for many, we would have to seek for them.

Today the voices of discord and materialism are loud, and getter louder.

 

[Truthseeker]

2) No coherent concept of well being of life on earth can be defined. But I agree the ecological systems are under extreme stress due to the current human consumption rates. Decreasing it responsibly is a target that is however achievable this century.

It's not only the consumption rates, it is the fossil fuels used to do this that warm the atmosphere. All of this is acheivable, yes, but to do this, you need a moral renaissance where consumption and material well-being are not paramount.

 

[sayak83]

It's not only the consumption rates, it is the fossil fuels used to do this that warm the atmosphere. All of this is acheivable, yes, but to do this, you need a moral renaissance where consumption and material well-being are not paramount.

Or you can do a transition to a green energy production system and recycle based circular economy. The shifting that is needed is from use and throw to use and reuse based production.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You really think so?

How do the few do this? Through books, through other mass media? We would have to listen to them first, wouldn't we? Further for many, we would have to seek for them.

Today the voices of discord and materialism are loud, and getter louder.

Through example; through placing love and service for others, above the heartbreaking pursuit of self interest. We can each try to bring these values into our own lives, and live, as far as we can, according to them.

As for the worldly clamour of greed and materialism, that distracting noise has always been there. Best to ignore the siren calls, as far as we can; Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. For the riches of this world are not the things of enduring value.

 

[Truthseeker]

But people are already developing technologies that can suck CO2 from air. So on the long term it is possible that we can actually decrease the CO2 levels to prevent Greenland Ice sheets from melting.

Those are prohibitately expensive, or so I've heard. Better to grow trees, and other natural CO2 sinks. However, special material interests are getting in the way of that. The problem is more moral and ethical than technological, though they should go hand-in-hand. The costs of green energy are going down, but we need the collective will to move to that from fossil fuels. The producers of fossil fuels will not magically go away. They are obscuring the truth. If more people don't investigate what the situation really is, change will be hard to come by, and for decades it has indeed been hard to come by. Fairly investigating the truth is a moral principle.

 

[Truthseeker]

Or you can do a transition to a green energy production system and recycle based circular economy. The shifting that is needed is from use and throw to use and reuse based production.

As I replied later, a transition to a green energy system does not come easily because the fossil fuel industries are obscuring the a situaion for their own gain. They have doing so for decades. That in itself a moral problem. Then too many people are letting themselves be fooled by the obscuration. If they fairly investigated the truth of the matter, that would be another avenue to solve our dilemma. Fairly investigating is another moral principle we need.

 

[Truthseeker]

Through example; through placing love and service for others, above the heartbreaking pursuit of self interest. We can each try to bring these values into our own lives, and live, as far as we can, according to them.

As for the worldly clamour of greed and materialism, that distracting noise has always been there. Best to ignore the siren calls, as far as we can; Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. For the riches of this world are not the things of enduring value.

Yes, we can do all that, but what about the collective spirituality of the human race? I can - what's the word - affect only a few people around me. That worthwhile, don't get me wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, we can do all that, but what about the collective spirituality of the human race? I can - what's the word - affect only a few people around me. That worthwhile, don't get me wrong.

Yeah, that’s all any of us can do. For the rest, we must have faith.

 

[PureX]

First of all, I would assert that your phrase “the will of life” would be a mischaracterization. The imperatives governing the organism ‘Life’ is not a will, rather it would be better characterized as an algorithm or programming.

Now who is 'projecting'? But it's just semantics, anyway.

Second, since any conception of morals is a subjective abstract human construct, such a construct would not be applicable to the algorithms that govern this organism ‘Life’.

Actually, no. There is a strong philosophical argument to be made for an ethical imperative based on the 'objective' ideal that it is better to exist, than not to exist. And that ethical imperative is born out by the fact that everything that does exist, expends energy (effort) maintaining that state of being. "Morality" is just a human value assessment of behavior based on some ethical imperative.

Third, there is no restriction in the algorithms of ‘Life’ that prevents one differentiated form from eliminating other differentiated forms. Hundreds of extinctions have resulted from only 30 invasive predator species, including rats, cats, and pigs. (Link)

Existence is based on exploring and fulfilling possibility, not on morality. This is not an issue of predation, where one possibility is usurped by another in the natural flow of explored possibility. It's an issue of unnatural destruction due to our itwisted inability to cognitively transcend the natural flow of explored possibilities.

Fourth, I would say that we human beings appear to be far from anomalous. Expanding into any and all possible environments and exploiting any and all available resources appear quite in keeping with the algorithmic imperatives to survive and reproduce. It is now to the point where this organism ‘Life’ has differentiated aspects that will allow it to expand beyond the confines of this planet.

The expansion of our "dumb animal" natures has long since become a malignancy to life as we know it. Clearly indicating this is not the direction of exploration and possibility that we should be pursuing.

I would also take issue with your characterization that we have overwhelmed our natural niche to the point of destroying it.

We could render the Earth much like Mars. That is not beyond possibility if we continue to treat our only home like a dumb animal in pursuit of any and every advantage, regardless of consequence.

I also do not foresee the extinction of all life on earth as a result of human activity.

What you cannot foresee does not negate that possibility. But again, you are basing your position on a total extinction as a legitimate failure. Logic does not support that position.

 

[soulsurvivor]

I will as will you and everyone else. Perfection is the inevitable end to every being's journey through the multiple cycles of births and deaths. Since all beings are fundamentally indivisible aspects of the ultimate perfected reality (Brahman) hence they simply have to realize their innate perfected divine nature and the task is done. What needs to be eliminated is the illusion that one is imperfect, that one needs to be saved, that one is finite etc etc. Once that goes, you are done.
Neither the Buddha, Jina, or the Vedantic rishis or Krishna needed to perfected by anyone. They simply realized who they were and who everyone else were as well. Once that is fully understood, nothing further is to be done or achieved.

You are probably right. This Hindu belief that everyone needs a Guru is as you say total nonsense.

 

[MikeF]

Now who is 'projecting'? But it's just semantics, anyway.
Actually, no. There is a strong philosophical argument to be made for an ethical imperative based on the 'objective' ideal that it is better to exist, than not to exist. And that ethical imperative is born out by the fact that everything that does exist, expends energy (effort) maintaining that state of being. "Morality" is just a human value assessment of behavior based on some ethical imperative.
Existence is based on exploring and fulfilling possibility, not on morality. This is not an issue of predation, where one possibility is usurped by another in the natural flow of explored possibility. It's an issue of unnatural destruction due to our itwisted inability to cognitively transcend the natural flow of explored possibilities.
The expansion of our "dumb animal" natures has long since become a malignancy to life as we know it. Clearly indicating this is not the direction of exploration and possibility that we should be pursuing.
We could render the Earth much like Mars. That is not beyond possibility if we continue to treat our only home like a dumb animal in pursuit of any and every advantage, regardless of consequence.
What you cannot foresee does not negate that possibility. But again, you are basing your position on a total extinction as a legitimate failure. Logic does not support that position.

Logic, in and of itself has a weakness in terms of drawing realistic conclusions. Much like any algorithmic system, garbage in gets garbage out. In other words, the premises or information upon which you apply logic must be sound in order to derive sound conclusions.

I certainly do not have any issue with you applying a subjective preference that life (perhaps more specifically human life) be seen as having the purpose of exploring and fulfilling possibility, and I would share that subjective sentiment. However, I do not think that it accurately describes the process of life as we observe it.

As an aside, you seem to have conflated the terms 'existence' and 'life'. I treat these as separate concepts.

 

[PureX]

Logic, in and of itself has a weakness in terms of drawing realistic conclusions. Much like any algorithmic system, garbage in gets garbage out. In other words, the premises or information upon which you apply logic must be sound in order to derive sound conclusions.

I certainly do not have any issue with you applying a subjective preference that life (perhaps more specifically human life) be seen as having the purpose of exploring and fulfilling possibility, and I would share that subjective sentiment. However, I do not think that it accurately describes the process of life as we observe it.

As an aside, you seem to have conflated the terms 'existence' and 'life'. I treat these as separate concepts.

I conflate the terms in this instance because I am referring to the whole existential system. It's ALL about fulfilling possibilities. If it can happen it will happen. And if it cannot, it will not. Life could happen so it did. Cognition could happen so it did. But now we need to keep moving forward, because remaining just a cognitive animal isn't in keeping with the 'system', and we are becoming a destructive anomaly within it. We need to transcend into whatever possibilities are available to a highly cognitive life form. And so far we are not doing that. Certainly not quickly enough. We have the brains to be doing far better in this regard than we are. But for some reason we are having difficulty getting past our dumb animal selfishness. And it's becoming a real detriment to all life on Earth, including even our own.