Nuts and Ethics

Today the world is full of nuts. We are at a population of twice what the earth can support with our present life style, based on Co2 level rise. Only a few are even aware of this. Oh well. And at the same time religions are keeping the population in ignorance of reality. Oh well. So what is the solution? There is not one, the sixth extinction will make the correction.

Ethics come from two sources, those handed down and those we develop through logic plus some obvious statement, obvious after considerable study. If we want to live well, we need to provide the conditions that others can live well, and together we all can live well. It is all about cooperation. Little more. In an overpopulated world, gaining cooperation becomes more difficult as we each do not have the space that we each need to be comfortable in our life, so we try to get the upper hand rather than fair and equal cooperation. This bully nature is human nature, I think. We see this in the US attitude today. We see this in Ontario today with Ford over-reach, and many other places. All this has a common factor, and that is crowding, aka overpopulation. Overpopulation makes the bullies seam like leaders. They get their way, not because their way is right, but by force.

Humans seem to have an inborn ability to cooperate, yet we are easily able to psychologically or intentionally override this ability. Or is all this a psychological ability, is cooperation a learned characteristic? Beavers build dams, spiders build webs, and all that is genetic programing. I expect that human cooperation is genetic also, as it is so important to our survival. We cooperate as long as the action is in our individual interests; beyond that not so much. We really see this in volunteer run facilities and organizations. We seem to have a genetic predisposition to look after our own interests first; and then maybe we do a bit more, but we need to enjoy it or get something else out of it first. Oh well.

What is right is not a clear ethic, but yet it is the foundation of prudence, which is a foundational virtue, upon which all ethics are based. But right itself is a subjective concept, well partly at least. It may be better to look at right as not wrong, as the wrongs are easier to define. Imposing our opinions on others is a wrong, expression our opinion and letting other chose is not. Minding our own business, and doing the right for the right reasons, not failing to do right because we dislike the person suggesting the right course of action, is prudent. To do this we need to take the time necessary to learn all the facts. That is the problem, the shortage of facts, and the available of information, and sorting; fact/fiction.

Sorting of fact/fiction has a parallel in criteria of the decision. It is as archery, which is the most important skill, speed, accuracy, range, weight of arrow, speed of arrow, range of arrow, but if it misses... well what is that all about. Or is it all about having fun, enjoyment, pleasure, and doing it again tomorrow?  

Ethics are about what is right, not about who is right. Ancestors and their beliefs need to take a back seat to our current needs, and current logic, current reality.

Aristotle

Aristotle called it something that translates into incontinence. This incontinence like thing, to Aristotle, was described as the nonrational desires are stronger than the rational desires. This sounds like the overeating problem.

So lately, I have been on an stomach acid reducing medication, proton pump inhibitor. It kill hunger. Has the problem been too much stomach acid all these years?

So if the nonrational desire is removed, aka the hunger is removed, and it is possible to not eat, should one still eat?