Fair, I really mean pessimism rather than nihilism. On what basis can you reject philosophical pessimismâa self-consistent and valid belief that is seemingly impossible to prove/âdisproveâother than that it is just not pragmatic or constructive at all.
Because development has been the human project for the last 10,000 years and if we accept that it has been and continues to be a mistake then the conclusion is⌠what? anarcho-primitivism/âregressing to pre-industrial hunter-gather life/âReturn to Monke. That doesnât seem very practical.
The conclusion would be that weâd better stop dumping money on the global poor to make sure we have as many meat-eaters as possible to support an unregulated factory farming industry, and direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility rather than just rtitualistically making offerings to the past.
âdirect altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utilityâ
Vague and evasive. Say what you mean. If you want to keep poor people poor until some new technology comes out, you should say that. If you donât think further development will ever be justified, you should say that (so that your contention can be discarded as absurd and impractical)
I mean spending money and energy on animal welfare or some other positive cause rather than on alleviating poverty.
Doesnât that sound more like âdirect altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utilityâ than does the âabsurd and impracticalâ contention that âfurther development will [not] ever be justifiedâ?
Fair, I really mean pessimism rather than nihilism. On what basis can you reject philosophical pessimismâa self-consistent and valid belief that is seemingly impossible to prove/âdisproveâother than that it is just not pragmatic or constructive at all.
What is unpragmatic about not pouring money into global development if we determine that it is harmful?
Because development has been the human project for the last 10,000 years and if we accept that it has been and continues to be a mistake then the conclusion is⌠what? anarcho-primitivism/âregressing to pre-industrial hunter-gather life/âReturn to Monke. That doesnât seem very practical.
The conclusion would be that weâd better stop dumping money on the global poor to make sure we have as many meat-eaters as possible to support an unregulated factory farming industry, and direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility rather than just rtitualistically making offerings to the past.
âdirect altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utilityâ
Vague and evasive. Say what you mean. If you want to keep poor people poor until some new technology comes out, you should say that. If you donât think further development will ever be justified, you should say that (so that your contention can be discarded as absurd and impractical)
I mean spending money and energy on animal welfare or some other positive cause rather than on alleviating poverty.
Doesnât that sound more like âdirect altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utilityâ than does the âabsurd and impracticalâ contention that âfurther development will [not] ever be justifiedâ?