RE: philosophy

[nd603@soton.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


ok firstly on the matter of what philosophers are.well done brian. you've
pretty much put your finger on exactly what i think i understand
philosophers to be (regardless of whether something different came across
in my earlier emails), and you do it in a far more lucid and eloquent
manner than i could ever manage.more detailed too.

on the big debt issue - it seems to me that there is a constant mistake
running through the discussion here (and if this has already been addressed
i apologise, but i'm a very lazy reader and often miss things) and its this:
people keep referring to 'our current lifestyle' and general references to
'us' 'we' etc, as if the human race is one homogenous entity. which its
clearly not. when it comes to general environmental conscience, how can you
compare, say, a texan farmer;a nomadic african tribesman; a resident of
london/new york; a chinese factory worker, to suggest a few.

i take it by 'us' you generally mean those in the wealthy, priveleged
west.but even here the difference is huge. the only person i noticed saying
anything about their lifestyle was alice, who (i think) said she recycles a
lot, is very conscientious etc. but even if the entire country was like
her, except for the government, there would be very little difference in
the overall contribution of this country to global pollution.

its all very well making moral arguments to set out what we should do, but
its never going to be a moral argument that will sway the majority of
people into actually doing something.nor will it be the 'for our
grandchildren's sake' argument. i don't think its a matter of people being
too selfish, its people being too lazy that bothers me.without a direct
threat to their way of life, most people will want to help,but won't be
bothered.they've got more pressing concerns, like getting the kids to
school on time, rather than not using the car for once.

we live in a strange age.at the same time as people are eulogising about how
we need to drive cars less and be more conscientious we are bemoaning the
closing of the rover car factory.on a big scale, being environmentally
friendly will mean people losing jobs, and will require a massive change in
the way the global economy is driven (imagine america suddenly decreeing
that all cars have to be run on hydrogen or something, the lack of their
dependance on oil would be great environmentally, but it would be a seismic
shift in the way they deal with the world) and until the likes of america
change their ways, our shift will positive, but ineffective.unless it
forces/persuades them to follow suit.which is somewhat unlikely.

as usual i lack any kind of coherent argument there, but its some thoughts
at least.

nick




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm