Ironic since most philosophers reject IQ as an overall prerequisite for intelligence.

My thought as well. Most of the ones mentioned I don't recognize as philosophical questions at all. Trite, boring, conventional.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I should be more sensitive to Poe's law.

I was trying vaguely to hint at the idea that all this lineup seems to have done is rediscovered pragmatism. But since it's dressed up in contemporary problems, it's being cast as a philosophical innovation.

If you think a gig economy can help save the climate then i got bad news for you, slavery isn't the answer

Also raise average IQ by 15-20 points :D

[removed]

I'm not trying to get $$$

I believe in collaboration instead.

Look at the open source movement. They produce far superior code to that of all the big corporations with budgets in the billions. Yes, some corporations hire teams of independent minded open source creators and exploit them IMO because they control the real gold: eyeballs and data.

I want to work without being tied to $$. I want to find the first collaborators and roll on from there.

:heart: > $

>Will we successfully address the climate crisis or not?

>The only question is whether any of the destruction we have already inflicted on our world is reversible, and if so how this can be done.  

>Is it possible for us to get our collective acts together to allow us, other animals, and the planet to survive?”

>Is there going to be a 22nd century? 

4 out of 13, now I counted it looks like I exaggerated. Rest of the questions are ight tho

Like I said evil isn’t innate it comes as a result of hardship or devilish ambitions.

Yes and no evil can exist even if we lack atoms. As only energy will be present. But that's just theoretical and not a fact.

As evil is created through the creation of organism. When they start to adapt.

Example particles

Really? I thought we might find a fruitful new line of inquiry into metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, with talks about the philosophy of "innovation" and "synergy" and "skill-stacking to meet the flexible challenges of a freelance gig-economy while advancing 'green' affiliate multilevel marketing toolkits".

edit: /s

What will define this century will be not what philosophers say but the amount of philosophers we can create.

Democracy can only function properly if the average Joe has a basic foundation of philosophy and the ability to debate their point with skill.

If we want to save humanity we have to start teaching philosophy in all levels of education.

Half the questions are the same, concerning about climate change, and that isn't even really a philosophical question

Boring

Happy cake day

Can evil exist in a universe that lacks atoms? Just answer this.

1. I think you should state this "ultimate"/"proximate" distinction more clearly.
2. I still have problems with predicating an individual's morality on the pragmatics of his/her membership in an "in-group." Examples:

• Camus feels himself a "Stranger" in an absurd world. He predicates his morality not on being a member of an in-group or otherwise on being subject to an in-group's system of values, but on being a sentient being who makes choices about how he is going to get through life. (And he does so with extreme courage.)
• A monk's morality may be guided by the goal of achieving his own enlightenment, achieved through the self-non-preoccupied elimination of ego. He may immolate himself, not to encourage others to do so, but to protest this incarnation of his existence.
• The morality of a Tang poet may be guided by the engagement of his senses in pursuit of the non-rational "wu," (nothingness), a state that implicitly involves disregard for imperial society's prevailing order of value, which prioritized correct behavior in keeping with Heaven's mandate. A young Chinese intellectual, perhaps influenced by this recurring phenomenon in Chinese social history, may make a similar ethically inspired but lonely and contrarian choice to stop striving for the wealth, social status and (less likely) political power dangled by the hegemonic materialist value system of the Communist Party of China.

We could switch to nuclear. Also, too late for what? The worst predictions are "the planet will warm up a few degrees by 2100".

I propose that it's "rooted" - evolved - in the context of a "we". But there are two classes of motivations: ultimate (evolutionary) and proximate (present-day). We can carry our ultimate instincts into the present day, where they do not have to be rooted in a "we". For example, we may help out-group members compassionately, using the same instinct we use to help in-group members.

Yes I think your use of bias to mean what I’ve called core beliefs is confusing given cognitive biases. But there is another equation. I think the strength of a belief (the degree of certainty someone claims for the truth or falsity of it) has 2 components. First the evidence they claim and second the importance to them that the belief is true or false. People believe true things and believe false things anywhere on these scales. When I use core beliefs I mean those beliefs that are far along the importance scale although they could be beliefs about almost anything. So someone can believe falsely that Rio de Janeiro is the capital of Brazil or falsely that Trump won the 2022 election but attach very different importance to these two beliefs. The problem is what happens when evidence and importance clash, which is something I think a conspiracy theory can resolve. Although it seems unlikely I would not even dismiss the possibility that someone would believe in a conspiracy to hide Rio as the true capital of Brazil!

Those who cite critical thinking as the solution to the problem of false beliefs are I think missing this other dimension. Critical thinking can allow you to address the evidence someone claims but it does not address the importance they attach to the belief. Even when someone has no grounds to believe something they can still believe it. I don’t know the answer here though, I’m merely questioning whether critical thinking is enough on it’s own. I have a favoured analogy here. The advocates of critical thinking (only) sometimes seem to me like the advocates of abstinence only as a way to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. I’m not suggesting that abstinence only doesn’t work, just that I don’t think it’s something people do all that well!.

No meaningful impact is going to come from whether people decide to have children or not. As someone else already previously said on this post, the changes have to be systemic, driven on the government,corporate and industrial scale.

The world population has been in decline and will likely continue to do so. Why speak of some alarmist anti-natalist, eco-fascist position when we should be holding corporations and capitalism at fault for most of this?

Carbon capture is not feasible lol. It’s greenwashing copium. We can’t switch fully to renewables fast enough. It’s already too late. Even so, where do all the precious metals come from? The planet is overpopulated. That’s why I am choosing not to have children. I would adopt.

Eastern belief systems I find have an easier time dealing with the concepts of good and evil. If I smush a spider that was going to bite me, that was good from my perspective, as I don't want to get bit. But it was evil from the spider's perspective, who didn't want to die.

The idea that the individual is the final arbiter of good and evil is problematic to say the least.

I don't contest how morality may have "evolved" nor that it in human society it may be mostly rooted in the pragmatics of social collaboration, rather your assertion that moral behavior is necessarily that "which we do in pursuit of a joint goal" -- that is, that a wilful act of "rightness" is always, necessarily rooted in the "we" of our existence in society.

Our desire to see animals as like humans is a discourse of power - it comes from a yearning for absolution for our guilt for what we frame for ourselves as our exploitativeness - but it is common enough to find that claims of human-like animals are ultimately fraudulent (such as Koko the gorilla) to deconstruct the relationship between the Bambi-fication of animals in culture and the hard consequentialism of calculating animal suffering. The former is not a result of the latter.

Furthermore culturally we don’t just see that animals are like people, we rather see that they are like children. And there have been enough experiments on animals-as-children or children-as-animals that have ended catastrophically or have had to be stopped because the observed outcomes were so drastically different than what was anticipated that we should not trust this impulse when we encounter it in our thinking.

And in fact observing the correlation of human political purity movements, we find correlation between ideological vegetarians/vegans, anti-vaxxers, religious and new age purity movements and ultimately cults and theocratic fascism.

So I think we should see the movement to subordinate human dietary habits - which are economic and behavioral systems within systems and are certainly not entirely consciously controlled - under a social concern for animals-as-children - and in turn under the authority of a political movement, especially one that seeks to use the state to further its ends - as totalitarian rather than utilitarian.

Animals of course cannot liberate themselves, though that doesn’t stop broad artistic and cultural fantasizing that they can, which should further suggest that claims that this movement is scientific to the exclusion of power discourse are not credible.

The moral mandate that people at large need to be ethically perfected - and in particular that you are causing social ills by not willing yourself to be perfect and should be ashamed of it - does not serve ethical ends but is a means of domination and exploitation and is an enemy of an open society.

Finding yourself in the situation where you eat animals, I can understand attempting to foster an ethically motivated desire to reduce it or change how or how much you do it, but it is okay or even preferable for the difficulty of doing this, the seldomness with which it sticks, and how you then go about from there to inform your understanding of your own situation, to hold more sway with you than the social pressure to be either morally pure and perfect or ashamed of yourself.

If you want to stop eating meat, go for it, but just practically speaking it doesn’t take all that often so if it doesn’t take for you don’t be too surprised and don’t try to propagandize too disingenuously for it.

Seriously- who would really forgo such an incredible and (many say) meaningful part of life because they want to reduce burden on the planet? (I know people sometimes talk this way but I dont believe that the climate is changing their minds about kids, I believe they dont want kids and are morally justifying that.)

Alright, I will give all your answers, but a disclaimer - ( most of these answers are from a higher concept of perspective or consciousness ) You may now ask me - how did you get all this answers and what's the proof for their validity. For this you can try to go deeper within yourself to find the answers. Start meditation and you will eventually find the real YOU. We have created a notion that we need proof for everything that ever existed. NO! The proof which you supply or take is from your point of consciousness and even if I did give proof, from what state of mind would you understand it? There is the only truth and that is to be experienced. There is no up to it, down to it. Neither proof nor disproof.

1. You see, consciousness is the fundamental reality the ever existed and will exist. Why does it exist? because it cannot un-exist. As funny as it may sound. Nothingness cannot exist. Even today 90% of the population cannot get their head around because they have been conditioned so much by society and science. Science is you finding your own nature. We as humans are always thought to believe that we are from someplace else and magically existed here on earth and milky way galaxy (And we have to figure ourselves out) Nope. We are nature, and a product of it. Our nature is not understood by going into the galaxies and finding science of objects. Our own nature is understood by going deeper within. Now, coming back to my point. Existence is eternal. It takes a lot of consciousness and perspective to understand this. You see, Nothingness and existence make the perfect symmetry (Like good and bad, up and down) - One cannot exist without the other and this is fundamental reality. Existence is consciousness and consciousness is Life. Life is consciousness experiencing itself.

Is there a goal for life? Answer - No. We have created the notion that there has to be a beginning and end result for everything. This is a dogma created by the humans. You as a person are pure consciousness and your thoughts are society given. Say if you have an opinion. It is not your own opinion. It is the interpretation of the conditioning that you have been given from the society. Your thoughts are not yours. Neither is your body. The concept of you is the only reality. When you point out to you, is it your name? Nope, Is it your thoughts? Nope. Its definitely not your body. The who is the real you. This self- inquiry into yourself will give you all the answers. You may not believe in God now and I completely agree because I have been in your place. The religions and all the non-sense scared the real shit out of me. But my friend, how you and me are real. So is he. So for the final truth, Who is he? - Consciousness. Are we in a simulation - If so, the people who is doing the simulation are also conscious, right? So that is what is. That is the fundamental reality. I don't assume that you have to understand everything, if you did that would be a surprise. But when you do. You will be awake. You will have broken from the matrix. :) Good luck my friend. Go deeper within - Try to self inquire. After you find the real You. you will have all your questions answered.