Fair, I really mean pessimism rather than nihilism. On what basis can you reject philosophical pessimism—a self-consistent and valid belief that is seemingly impossible to prove/disprove—other 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/regressing to pre-industrial hunter-gather life/Return to Monke. That doesn’t seem very practical.
The conclusion would be that we’d 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.
“direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility”
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 don’t 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.
Doesn’t that sound more like “direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility” than does the “absurd and impractical” contention that “further development will [not] ever be justified”?
I’m not sure how you’re defining nihilism there?
Fair, I really mean pessimism rather than nihilism. On what basis can you reject philosophical pessimism—a self-consistent and valid belief that is seemingly impossible to prove/disprove—other 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/regressing to pre-industrial hunter-gather life/Return to Monke. That doesn’t seem very practical.
The conclusion would be that we’d 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.
“direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility”
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 don’t 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.
Doesn’t that sound more like “direct altruistic focus strategically so as to be of positive utility” than does the “absurd and impractical” contention that “further development will [not] ever be justified”?