Temple to Atheism

[Griffin NoName]

This isn't (yet) an event but not sure where to put it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheism

[Opsa]

I really like the idea. It sounds like a very tolerant presentation of Atheism. I think Dawkins puts people off with his negativity. This sounds like a step in the right direction.

What I don't like about negative Atheism is that it sounds like the grumblings of an eye-rolling, know-it-all adolescent. What good does it do to simply put down religion as poppycock?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I thought there were already temples to rational thinking, museums of natural history I believe they're called... 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually, I agree with Dawkins here...

... I have absolutely no reservations with temples of tolerance, or love, or human achievement (such as museums Zono mentioned).

Or of temples celebrating secular activities such as secular humanism, or a mix of secular/spiritual such as the Toadfish Monastery.

But I do have an objection to using the word "atheism"-- it's not some mystical state of being.  Atheism is simply a lack of faith in supernatural stuff.  That's it.

There's no creed.  There's no book of how to be atheist.  There's no motto a person has to follow.  You cannot build on a lack, a nothing.

And that's too thin a commonality (lack of faith in gods/supernatural) to build a functional community on-- you have to have more.   Much more.

To misuse the word "atheist" is to create a divide, to create additional nonsense around a term that is quite simple. 

So make your temple to one of love, tolerance and inclusiveness if you like.   Or make a temple of left-handed bald men if that's your cherry pie. 

But making one in tribute to "atheism" is akin to making a temple celebrating a vacuum....  what would be the point?

[Opsa]

Interesting point you made, Bob!

[Roland Deschain]

Those are pretty much my own sentiments too. Atheism is not a belief system, and although what's being suggested sounds interesting, it should be dedicated to something far more worthwhile than a lack of belief in any deity. A monument to our achievements, and the evolutionary process that got us here would be better, but then we have many places which already do this, in one part or another. I live near London (just outside it, actually), and there are so many museums and art galleries to visit, it's a little overwhelming, not to mention the wonderful theatres in the West End if I want to worship at the altar of visual literature (probably the wrong analogy to use, but...).

I took my Turkish friend to the National Gallery almost 2 months ago, and showed him Van Gogh's Sunflowers (he's only in the UK for a few months). He also went to the Natural History Museum with some other friends. He'd never been to a proper art gallery or museum before, at least not on this scale, but this, I hope, will open his eyes to just a little of not only how we came to be, but also of what we have achieved, and of what is possible for us in the future. This is worth far more than a building that could just as easily be dedicated to a lack of belief in Russell's Teapot, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which of course it technically is.

[Swatopluk]

In my book (I have several ) atheism is not the simple lack of belief but the active rejection of it. For that reason I also think that many 'atheists' are actually either agnostics (weak variety*) or indifferent.
If there was no religion there would be no atheism (while agnosticism could still exist). It counts at least as philosophy, and there are enough fervent true atheists around that cannot be really distinguished from strong religious believers. C.S.Lewis had some nasty but not fully unrealistic caricatures of those running around in his novels (e.g. the dwarves in the last Narnia book). In short, once they become impervious to evidence, they can be safely considered 'religious'.
Btw, religion does not need god. Some varieties of Buddhism are in essence 'godless' and many people treat something in their life as a religious believer would (and then they start proselytizing, ask your zealous vegetarian, homoeopath or even Roling Stones fan next door  )

*strong agnosticism denies not the possibility of 'god' but the possibility of any meaningful contact with one should one exist.

[Roland Deschain]

You refer to but one definition of atheism. This is where it gets tricky, as there are a number of definitions, some new, some old, that cause confusion amongst people. I take atheism as either a complete lack of belief or a denial (as you point out), but surely a denial of any and all deities does not necessarily have to mean that you take a fundamentalist position? There has to be an idea behind a fanatic, and to me, a simple lack of belief, or denial of gods, doesn't appear enough. The fanaticism enters when you entertain other ideas, such as a strong "them and us" attitude, which is frankly hard not to do, which can then lead on to other thoughts, such as "all religious people are dumb", which itself leads onto yet other ideas. Atheism itself does not hold an ideology as such, but individual atheists can do.

EDIT: Shouldn't have clicked that button, lol. You mention The Rolling Stones as an example of religion without supernatural gods, but the 'Stones don't make any claims to godhood, and neither do they require anyone to worship them. They merely wish people to buy their music and listen to it, just as all bands do, and it is the fans who become fanatical on their own. Through your argument, you could even relate political ideologies to religion. There is an ability and a need in many human beings to become obsessed with one thing or another, and to virtually worship it, and this is what people do. It doesn't necessarily make it a religion. As for Buddhism, it is one of the only religions I feel has even an ounce of credibility, and tend to leave it off of my critique of religion in general. I've seen some interviews with the Dalai Lama, and I must say that he seems a pretty sensible guy.

[Aggie]

It's the current banding together of atheists and the amount of mutual back-patting in these groups that dismays me. Grouping up just seems to be a gateway for "us and them" thinking, especially when there are open attacks on such perspectives by religious fanatics.  The balancing act is to be able to hold an open opinion but not feel driven to proselytization or aggressively pushing "us is right" when "them" keeps pecking at you. How to address this across a movement is quite another question.

I also get a little miffed at the Western-atheist obsession with the Abrahamic, anthropomorphic, presumed-OOO definition of god. It's natural to focus on the dominant cultural perspective, but I personally find this focus a little narrow-minded and reactionary. With a dominant definition of theism, it's little wonder that a dominant definition of atheism has arose, at least in the minds of those who aren't intimately involved in the dialogue and nuances of the non-theist spectrum.

EDIT: Shouldn't have clicked that button, lol. You mention The Rolling Stones as an example of religion without supernatural gods, but the 'Stones don't make any claims to godhood, and neither do they require anyone to worship them. They merely wish people to buy their music and listen to it, just as all bands do, and it is the fans who become fanatical on their own. Through your argument, you could even relate political ideologies to religion. There is an ability and a need in many human beings to become obsessed with one thing or another, and to virtually worship it, and this is what people do. It doesn't necessarily make it a religion.

EDIT: Swato says religion does not need god.  I say God does not need religion. I quite agree with the bolded bit, although I'd contend that this is exactly what makes any particular flavour of systemic god-bothering a religion. The fact that it's done for far more mundane matters on a regular basis demonstrates quite neatly that we don't need much of a foundation to heap up these sandcastles of worship.

[Swatopluk]

There are some real and some invented religions where the divine entity does not require worship or even discourages it. And then there's of course the deus otiosus, aka the 100% hands off god who set the world in motion and now either observes it or went away taking no further notice ('creavit et abiit')*. The Rastafarians worship(ped) Haile Selassie, who to my knowledge did not choose that particular role of divine entity or encouraged it.

*The Epicureans followed that belief. The Stoics also believed in hands-off gods but they had gods with notepads in mind that observed the world and would give humans their judgement after death.
That was another reason why The Church accepted Stoicism and condemned Epicureism (the others were of course that Epicureans followed the 1st Directive of non-meddling and found asceticism for asceticism's sake stupid).

[Roland Deschain]

Swato, could you define a "real religion" and an "invented religion" please? From my perspective, all religions are invented, so it would help to know how you define each one. I would say that if there is a supernatural part of our lives (would that not make it natural?), then it would either be something like Buddhism or Deism; either there is no god, and our consciousness lives on in some way, or something created the universe, gave it its laws, then left it all alone. I just can't get along with the idea of a personal god, I suppose.

Aggie, I spend, on occasion, a lot of time debating with creationists on Facebook (i'm a glutton for punishment, I know), and from time to time feel burnt out and need to take a break. I am on a break now, but what you say in your first paragraph reminds me of a few conversations i've had with them on how they feel victimised (ie - Christians; usually in the USA). In these cases I pointed out to them that, as a group, they only have themselves to blame. My reasoning is this. For years it was taboo to come out as an unbeliever in most places, especially in the smaller communities, where people tended to know one another. In cities and much larger communities, it was pretty safe to just not go to church. This meant that although the agnostic/atheist population may have been high, it was repressed due to the stigma of coming out, such as rejection from family and community. Over time, science has progressed to the point where it has started to chip away seriously at the Bible/Koran/Torah/Whatever, and people with a more rational bent have enacted laws to take account of the new science (abortion, evolution in schools, etc). This chipping away has reached a tipping point, but instead of the religious teaching their children "correctly" as they see fit, they seek to change the law to accommodate their own views, and try to publicly undermine a lot of what rational minds have fought for. Abortion is not mandatory, yet the way the religious right reacts, you'd think it was. Evolution is taught due to the overwhelming evidence for its simple truth, but instead of teaching their children creationism as usual, they try to get creationism taught in schools once again.

This backlash against scientific progress has probably brought more unbelievers out of the woodwork than any other tactic they could have used, with the effect essentially snowballing, yet they do not understand this, and keep trying and trying. They almost force unbelievers to become fanatical because of what I consider to be their rank stupidity. Therefore, they only have themselves to blame for the current situation. I know not every religious person is like this, as i'm not that stupid , but the most vocal are usually the most fanatical, and they don't give their fellow believers a good name. I'm not condoning discrimination against the religious, as everyone is entitled to their own views, but when you fight hard against truth and knowledge, don't come crying when people hit you back.

[Swatopluk]

I meant invented in the sense of literary invention like the Discworld religions or the Great Green Arkleseizure.
Of course there are invented religions in the real world too in the sense of deliberately made up without actual belief behind it (like definitely Scientology and possibly Mormonism).
A 'real' religion would be one where even the founders believe in it.
Neither of these has to be 'true' in the ontological sense of course.

[Griffin NoName]

Swato, could you define a "real religion" and an "invented religion" please?

Sorry, but this made me laugh out loud.

I meant invented in the sense of literary invention like the Discworld religions or the Great Green Arkleseizure.

What about Jung's Archetypes? His so called spirituality (I define spiritual differently) was actually religeous. I've always thought his Archetypes are pretty godlike.

[Roland Deschain]

I understand now, Swato. A "real" religion is one where (from an atheist's point of view) a person is delusional, and truly believes that their god is speaking to them, and an "invented" religion is one where its progenitor knows that what they are spewing is from themselves alone. I'm wondering where Buddhism would come in that definition? I shall have to think on that one.

Griffin, feel free to laugh at anything I say. I even chuckled at that, which is why I wrote the sentence after it.

[pieces o nine]

^ Close...

A 'real' religion has an official book explaining that it's real.
An 'invented' religion doesn't.

[Aggie]

A 'real' religion is one where the person who had the firsthand experience has been dead long enough that his estate is no longer receiving royalties. 

[Swatopluk]

I assume there are a lot of new 'real' religions but they are far outweighedby fake ones.
Unless we can check the initiator (and his state of mind), we cannot say for sure, which ones are which.
Of course there are a number of clear cases of fakery. The size of the bank account of the  founder (minus what (s)he started with plus what (s)he spend after for private use) can be a strong indicator.

I think a distinction is necessary though. Jesus for all we know did not intend to found a new religion but to reform Judaism. Mohammed on the other hand came up with something new while claiming to be only a reformer/restaurator of the 'original' religion. The least one can say is that Islam was an improvement over the local cults at the time which included at least occasional human sacrifice.
My (rather uninformed) view is that Mohammed had actual visions but shaped his new religion at least in part according to what he thought was necessary. I do not think that it was just a (far-fetched) get-rich-and-powerful-quick scheme. He was not the simple camel driver he is often depicted at by his detractors. To challenge the powerful and ruthless establishment he was by family part of is not what your run-of-the-mill fake cult leader would do. To do that one would have to be a loonie and/or a true visionary. At least according to tradition Mohammed himself believed at first that his visions were a sign of his brain not working properly and it took persuasion by others to follow the path that led to the (currently) second most popular religion on the planet. I doubt that he would even have understood what a billion is, let alone having so many followers.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

IMNSHO, Xtianity is not the religion Christos but the one successful scheme of Saul of Tarsus. Islam seems like a very clever (and long term successful) attempt to unify the tribes of the Arabic peninsula by Mohamed. The Jewish religion seems like a very clever attempt to unify the foreign worker underclasses of Egypt under one banner by Moses, although it seems that much of what passes for Moses handywork was really written in Babylon more than a thousand years after.

Buddhism seems to have some similitudes with Xtianism in that the prophet himself didn't write a word (that we know of) although the follow up seems a bit more straight forward in Buddhism than in Xtianism, plus, it isn't easy to find a clear political use of Buddhism (unless you consider the enlightened administration of Ashoka as political use) while the political use of Xtianism has been frequent since it has been a popular religion.

Were they all 'delusional'? Cause - effect relation in Abrahamic religions seems quite direct, so I have my doubts, I'm more inclined to think that each of the 'movers' (Moses, Saul, Mohamed) claimed to have visions to advance their argument. With Siddhartha the only possible delusion would be the claim that he remembered his previous incarnations, considering that those can be retrieved using hypnosis (regardless of what you think of the veracity of those events) it is plausible to think he wasn't delusional in the conventional sense. As for JC, it is very hard to tell anything, from my perspective his historicity is dubious to begin with, and there is likely a blend of individuals coined into one person, plus a good deal of exaggeration and/or tales after the fact that makes very difficult to tell if he (or they) was/were delusional.

I have not that much knowledge of Zoroaster to have and opinion there.

As for the 'new' prophets, Joseph Smith and Ron L. Hubbard, I think that the delusional bunch were the followers. J. Smith may have been delusional but the elaborated deception to prove his account was true makes me think he wasn't. and Ron L.... well he himself wrote that religion was wonderful business, so no delusion there either.

[Swatopluk]

Those are the two most prominent cases I had in mind too.
A most interesting case is the Bahai religion. To my knowledge it is the only one that considers itself to be not the ultimate truth but just another transition stage. When mankind would become mature enough, the next revelation would come. In essence humans (and other intelligent species elsewhere) are seen as school children that need to learn their lessons before they can advance. And among the most important lessons is to be humble about one's own developmental status. From that point of view the main problem with other religions is their lack of humbleness not their content. Given that the founder of the Bahai religion had cult leader attitudes himself (calling himself "The Door" ('Bab', the religion's name is derived from that) and that Bahai never held state power, it is of course speculation, whether that doctrine of humbleness would have prevailed had there been a Persian Constantine adopting the faith for his own purposes. Buddhism did not stop large scale atrocities in East Asia. All major religions seem to have their genocides attached to them even if the doctrine is totally opposed to that type of behaviour. And state atheism has as bad a trade record. Nothing seems to trigger violent intolereance in humans more than differences in spiritual belief (or lack thereof).

[Griffin NoName]

Of course there are a number of clear cases of fakery. The size of the bank account of the  founder (minus what (s)he started with plus what (s)he spend after for private use) can be a strong indicator.

But the reverse is not true? If the bank account is empty, the religion is the true path?

[Swatopluk]

No, not all frauds are successful. And even religion derived wealh is not a 100% proof of fraud. It's just something to rise suspicion.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Buddhism did not stop large scale atrocities in East Asia. All major religions seem to have their genocides attached to them even if the doctrine is totally opposed to that type of behaviour.

I don't think a religion in itself can stop atrocities, the question is if it encourages atrocities. For some reason I'm inclined to think that abrahamic religions are more prone to encourage atrocities than eastern ones, but I may be biased on the subject.

[Griffin NoName]

Buddhism did not stop large scale atrocities in East Asia. All major religions seem to have their genocides attached to them even if the doctrine is totally opposed to that type of behaviour.

I don't think a religion in itself can stop atrocities, the question is if it encourages atrocities. For some reason I'm inclined to think that abrahamic religions are more prone to encourage atrocities than eastern ones, but I may be biased on the subject.

Hang on there. What about the argument for religion because without it society would have no morality, and no frame of reference.

How does religion have it both ways?

[Swatopluk]

That one is simple. Religion is the ideal means to transform heinous acts into moral ones.
If you covet your neighbour's possessions and cut him to pieces in order to get them, that is atrocious murder and greed.
If on the other hand you declare him/her to be an enemy of god (a witch maybe) and either act as above or have the authorities do it and give you a large part of the spoils as reward, that is upstanding moral citizenry.
There is a notorious tradition esp. in the US of fundies committing theft, fraud and worse justifying it as acts to further the glory of god.
Nothing new there, the technical term is 'pia fraus' (pious fraud), i.e. e.g. faking miracles in order to improve conversion rates. It is behaviour like that that led to the theory that all religion is a fraud committed by 'the priests' for purely selfish purposes (Priestertrug). The first to put it in (surviving) words seem to have been pre-socratic philosophers in Greece.

[Sibling DavidH]

A real religon has silly clothes, particularly hats.  Its priests also chant stuff in a dismal drone.  Fake religions try to communicate with their adherents, not to confuse them.

[Swatopluk]

You have not seen some fake religions I have. There are many of what Scott Adams ('Dilbert') christened 'confusopols' among them.
It's at the very core of 'mystery cults' fake and genuine.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Somewhere or other, I read an article that was a follow-up to the God Helmet one, in that it appears we have a brain function that seems to make us perceive the "other".

Now if we've previously been indoctrinated in one or more forms of the god meme, then we typically associate this 'other' phenomena with some sort of deity or at the very least, metaphysical events.

It appears this 'other' function in our brains is normally used to allow us to dissociate thoughts from our own self, for more abstract ideas.  This ability is paramount in a self-aware, but cooperative species-- it enables more functional cooperative behavior (so you can easily see what drove it to exist in the first place).

And certain forms of head trauma (including being struck by lightning) can activate this 'other' function in ways that are far above the normal help-you-be-cooperative ways.  See the god helmet Wiki.

Next, the article describes OCD behavior-- not the highly compulsive types where the sufferers are truly victims of their brains, but the mildly OCD types that are otherwise highly functional individuals.

In many mildly OCD people, following certain behavioral rules becomes a coping mechanism (to deal with the OCD) to the point of fanaticism.   Normally, these rules are only applied to self, and possibly a few associative family members; not really impacting the larger communities.

But.

What happens when you get the following combination:

An individual is mildly OCD.
The individual is also somewhat in a position of authority, at least peripherally.
The individual has some charisma, or is at least prone to writing, or has potential followers who are prone to writing.
Some event triggers a major "god helmet" event-- changing the brain enough such that these "god helmet" events become stronger and more frequent-- at least for a little while.

The outcome?  The mildly OCD personality asserts it's desire for sometimes arbitrary rules, and is "legitimized" by the "god helmet" event(s), and the authority/charisma causes these to be impressed onto the followers/hangers-on, and someone writes these new rules down....

What are the odds of all of these events happening in the correct order, with the correct "friendly" cultural situation?  Not very high, I'd wager-- but just high enough that they happened occasionally. 

And you get a religion springing up from the OCD "prophet".

If you have a culture that also has easy access to hallucinogenic substances?  I'd think it would occur more frequently.

-----------------

In the final analysis, the article concluded that many of human's religions likely sprung up from people suffering from mild OCD...

.. but that the original god meme likely came from individuals who's "other" brain function was stimulated by some sort of trauma or other.

However, once an idea meme is invented, it tends to perpetuate itself within cultures, by ingratiating itself into the impressionable next generation, who in turn pass it on.

[Roland Deschain]

Interesting article on the god helmet. There is so much we still do not know about the brain and how it functions, that this is entirely possible. That there is an innate need and ability to believe in something is fairly self-evident when looking at human history, but we are slowly but surely socially evolving to the point where science is answering so much of what we once attributed to god, that the old beliefs are slowly dying out, although not without one hell of a fight.

This is the problem with religion in general, even if they were started as a complete fraud. Later on, as with scientology, many adherents truly believe that what they are following is real, with some adherents become so fanatical as to enter madness. Are some people so unhappy with their life and the truths that science has uncovered, that they are willing to exit reality completely, or is it something completely different?

[Griffin NoName]

........... with some adherents become so fanatical as to enter madness. Are some people so unhappy with their life and the truths that science has uncovered, that they are willing to exit reality completely, or is it something completely different?

never forget Abraham was willing to kill his son

I think as long as we don't figure out what happened before the big bang there will always be religion

[Roland Deschain]

never forget Abraham was willing to kill his son

I think as long as we don't figure out what happened before the big bang there will always be religion

I love hearing the apologists talk about Abraham, completely glossing over the fact of what he was willing to do (allegedly). I love science so much because of what it doesn't tell us to do.

[Aggie]

This is the problem with religion in general, even if they were started as a complete fraud. Later on, as with scientology, many adherents truly believe that what they are following is real, with some adherents become so fanatical as to enter madness. Are some people so unhappy with their life and the truths that science has uncovered, that they are willing to exit reality completely, or is it something completely different?

IMHO, science is rich in facts and barren of truths, and that's the way it's supposed to work. Knowing the mechanics of how things work can be a source of wonderment, but there's really not much of a framework for discussing the larger meaning of the whole picture. You can have a complete mechanical and metallurgical understanding of an automobile, but what is the meaning of the automobile? is another question entirely, and arguably more important.

Technocracy has done a fairly good job of reducing the level of authentic experience in our lives, and I personally see the trend accelerating along with the rate of technological change. Don't doubt the extremes people will go to in order to regain some perceived authenticity in their lives, whether it's risking death to climb Everest or just spending thousands of dollars to move up the Scientology ranks. Willing to exit reality completely? Hell, it's one of my major goals in life! Beats office work, frozen meals, reality TV and cooing over the latest app on your smart phone. I'll be damned if I'm going to do it according to someone else's recipe, though.


FWIW, Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling does a pretty good job of exploring Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

[Roland Deschain]

Nice response, Aggie. Semantics on interpretation of fact/truth aside, I pretty much agree. When you say that science does not give us meaning, i'm not too sure that it doesn't give that in some cases, although definitely nowhere near all. This is what we have philosophy for, and is why we reason with one another.

As an example, I can say that science brought us the automobile in answer to the question of getting from A to B faster and easier, or to be able to travel greater distances, so the meaning is in the question that science answered. Not everything has meaning further than that, although we do assign meaning to these things ourselves, such as allowing us greater freedoms and more convenience in the case at hand. Thus, the meaning of an automobile is dependent upon the individual, and is generally grounded in very basic concepts without the need for philosophical discussion.

Another example is "What is the meaning of medicine?", which science can answer with "It's to improve the lives of people", but again this is something that doesn't go beyond its immediate remit. When we bring larger questions into play, such as "Why are we here?", things get a little more complicated. This could be answered by science, looking at our parents reproducing, evolution selecting for our species, an accretion disc forming from a gas cloud, a supernova producing said gas cloud, etc, all the way back in time to whatever the big bang actually was, but it cannot answer the simple question, "But why does anything exist at all?" There will always be one more question to answer, and I think this lies at the heart of the matter.

I say that ultimately there is no meaning for our existence but what we decide there is. Several theists have accused me of having a very nihilist attitude due to that, but they miss the point completely (never convinced any of them with my arguments). They see an existence without their god as completely pointless, which leads me to believe that in fact, they are the nihilists, and are covering that with god. I say we make our own reason, as you so nicely point out, marching to the beat of our own drum, regardless of what others may or may not think. Whether that reason is to pass on genes, gain knowledge, love, experience happiness, fear, loathing, hate, indifference, or apathy, or simply nothing at all makes no difference. Reason is what we decide it is. We are born, we grow, and eventually we leave the nest and go out into the world. What we do from there is our choice, and our choice alone.

I'm with you on exiting reality, but the difference I perceive between the average, or not so average, theist and myself is that I know precisely where reality and fantasy meet (I agree that this can be a very subjective concept). The lines do get a little blurred from time to time, and that can be so much fun, but that's just being human. What makes a rational being is knowing when to leave fantasy and come back to reality.

Thanks for the Kierkegaard. I've not read him at all, so I may keep an eye out for that particular book.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I -in my existentialist view- agree with Roland in that meaning is given by the subject, and it can go from absent to vain to transcendental depending on the individual, regardless of the actual very elemental meaning of life to perpetuate it self. 

Now this:

Technocracy has done a fairly good job of reducing the level of authentic experience in our lives, and I personally see the trend accelerating along with the rate of technological change.

What exactly is 'authentic experience' and who (and when) experiences it? Is authentic experience the feeling of wonder when we can look to an unpolluted clear night sky and see the billions of stars around us, or when we have the opportunity to commune with nature in one way or another? I for one am convinced that that such appreciation (and respect) is thought, and that simple exposure does not guarantee the experience; I say this because I've heard the attitudes of farmers or locals who live in places where the wilderness is all around and they rarely value that existence or do so when they (start to) lose their access to it. We may miss the contact with nature, but many of those who live in nature don't appreciate it as much and some are actively destroying through ignorance, necessity or simple greed.

Technology may help destroy or restore, may help to alienate or educate, the same way it may cure or kill. Are we more willing to spend more time in front of a screen than outside? Possibly, but then again it's generally cheaper* and easier to access than the closer rain forest, and then the beauty of the rain forest can be subjectively diminished by a night filled with humidity and insects**.

Also I'm under the impression that more people appreciate nature now than before even if more people attach themselves to a device now than before. Perceptions may be incomplete as shorter lives, longer work hours, higher levels of stress, etc were the norm the further back you go in time, so the alienation of the internet and video games may seem more pronounced now than the one around TV or the old radio days, but what was the majority of the population doing before that? In urban areas they were likely spending their meager earnings in bars, and the farmers would likely go to bed early as the cows needed to be milked before 5.

Remember that the romantic scenes of wonderfully dressed couples listening to the clave/piano or poetry were for the 1% of the population who had the time and wealth to stop to smell the roses.

*Even an expensive device ends up costing just a few dollars a day and sometimes less considering the amount of use.
**My experience last year when I went to see the Mayan ruins of Calakmul in the middle of a biosphere reserve was wonderful, but my wonder for the jungle (and the city in the middle of it) wasn't shared as much by my wife and inlaws who complained about the bugs in the hotel we used.

[Aggie]

Perceptions may be incomplete as shorter lives, longer work hours, higher levels of stress, etc were the norm the further back you go in time, so the alienation of the internet and video games may seem more pronounced now than the one around TV or the old radio days, but what was the majority of the population doing before that?

Actually, I fear that this is becoming the new norm as we go forward in time, too. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Long term I don't believe that will be the case, more stress, quite likely for a good portion of the population, but as automation takes away many jobs, higher unemployment will be the norm even if many goods will be even cheaper. If anything people will have more free time even if unwillingly.

As for shorter lives, the trend remains for longer ones in average. As more people will be poor in the first world that percentage may remain static or go down but overall I still think it will go up. If you consider global trends, emerging markets will raise those averages quite a bit (more middle class with access to modern medicine), so nope, unless you have a drastic fatalism (I sometimes do) and think that the resources crisis will push for a genocidal 'cleanup' of the poor, but it would have to be incredibly massive to have a real effect on statistics.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

It must be incredibly massive-- because longer lives is happening on a global scale.  Sure, not nearly as dramatic in the Congo or other areas if primitive technological base.  But even these people benefit a little bit from technology-- a few years added onto their average lifespans is not trivial-- not to them, I would wager.

What we need here?  Is cheap energy on a global scale.

Alas, that's not even on the horizon.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

There are easier and cheaper ways, just stop having babies, perhaps not in the draconian Chinese way but one child policy sounds very reasonable, perhaps with incremental fees per child as in one of A.C. Clarke books.

[Roland Deschain]

What science essentially says is nothing. Science makes no social comment, nor does it moralise. Science just is. When it does good and bad, it does so in the hands of humans. We are responsible for our reliance on oil, which is why there isn't a far cheaper source of fuel available at the moment, at least not a viable one, and why we are polluting the world we have to live in.

The problem as I foresee it is that there are far too many vested interests in the oil business who also just happen to be powerful in relation to the economic and political situations in the world. These people know that if an alternative power source suddenly came onto the market, then their power and money would virtually disappear overnight. Fusion power is becoming a reality, but could still be many decades away from fruition. It can use seawater, which just so happens to be very abundant on our planet, to make deuterium, which is used in some fusion reactor models. There is enough deuterium in the sea to last us 150 billion years, and nobody could gain a monopoly on it, only on the process of manufacture through patents. This is an incredibly powerful threat to the oil-producing companies, not to mention OPEC.

A discovery of that magnitude would vastly alter the distribution of wealth, not to mention power, so is it not in their best interests to allow this to come too quickly. Say, after the oil has run out, or near enough. There is not enough funding for fusion power research to be realised within any decent amount of time, but with more money invested in the research, which is currently being conducted by some very dedicated scientists, it may not be too late for our planet and for us. Altruism does not appear to be a priority amongst those with the power.

This does not handle the problems of overcrowding, food shortages, poverty, and anything else which may occur, and it definitely doesn't handle the issues in the third world, or the number of oppressive regimes many live under. What's needed is an incredibly large seismic shift in the attitudes of society at large, and a number of very powerful people gaining a conscience. Unfortunately, this is also not on the horizon, and may not even occur within our lifetimes without some drastic event. Who really wants a drastic event large enough to cause this, though?

[Swatopluk]

The problem with fusion is that is not very likely to get a small scale technical solution. The fuel would be easy to get but the plants would still be huge and therefore expensive and those prone to become monopolized.
The easier to obtain the fuel the more likely it is that someone will try to block the free access for commoners (that was even true when it was wood in the shape of dry twigs). If the means to use the fuel are beyond the commoner's range this is not necessary.
Big Fuel will stay with us (but not on our side).
Channeling my inner Marx-Engelist here

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Fusion is not viable, or at least not in the medium term, not due to politics or businesses but due to technical issues, Tokamaks are so far the more successful designs and supposedly ITER will be a net producer of energy (so far it takes more energy to start the fusion than the energy generated), but the successes with the design haven't been able to do so in a sustained form, and the materials will be bombarded with high energy neutrons that despite absorbent materials outside the magnetic confinement, will start attacking the materials of the containment area itself making them brittle. As we so far don't know a material resistant enough to neutrons for the job, commercial applications are pie in the sky at the moment.

The other design in consideration is inertial confinement, that uses fuel pellets and a laser to create the fusion, but not only making the pellets is incredibly hard, energy intensive and expensive, but the fusion isn't completely efficient, therefore the amount of energy produced is far from being a net producer of energy.
---

These people know that if an alternative power source suddenly came onto the market, then their power and money would virtually disappear overnight.

Actually I don't believe that, the people who owns fossil fuel energy, are at the same time investing in renewables because that is indeed the future and they will be a part of it. The reason for their reluctance to move forward is that they already invested an incredible amount of money in infrastructure to exploit fossil fuels and they're not going to shut those off until they extract the last bit of money out it.

As for altruism, psychopaths have no understanding of what that is (they can actually use it as a tool but they don't understand it), and those in power are in a large proportion psychopaths, so only when those individuals are removed from positions of power you'll see a more altruist society.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

My inner cynic agrees with you Zono, in that the majority of those in power are indeed, sociopaths.

[Roland Deschain]

I've never liked the idea of private companies supplying me with my fuel, power, and other utilities. I know that governmental control isn't perfect by a long shot, but it's a darn sight better, as a private company looks for one thing and one thing alone: profit. This automatically pre-disposes them to abuse and corruption, and, as you say, they want their money's worth before they introduce the next new thing.

[Griffin NoName]

Totally agree with you Rolly. I think utilities for profit is actually quite evil, similarly royal mail wannabee.

I have regular arguments with my son about this. My last stab was to ask if refugees in camps in Africa should pay for water......... he said yes......... I deduced from that, I have an insane son.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I totally agree:  natural monopolies such as power, fuel-gas (to homes) and other utilities should never be for profit.

I don't much like gub'ment, but the not-for-profit co-ops seem to be a good compromise:  by being a chartered not-for-profit, they can focus on quality of service, instead of whatever is cheapest...

... we have a few co-op electric companies left in Oklahomer, but the giant always-evil mega-corps are always trying to force-buy them out...  I hate mega-corps... I really do.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

While I do believe that public institutions have a better track record than private corporations, the main problems on both paradigms are the result of lack of oversight. Monopolies and size are also a problem, while there are economies of scale, I am convinced that a smaller company has a larger interest in the individual customer than a large one, that's why the larger the corporation the worse their customer service is (in the US, companies like ATT or Comcast are perfect examples of that).
--
My romantic self believes that the basics of life should be provided to all the population by the state or non-for-profit organizations: basic housing, health, utilities, education, and capped to reasonable amounts when possible*, but from the cap on, private for profit institutions should be able to provide the same services, that way society at large is covered but extra (ab)use is a responsibility of the individual. I don't expect to see it happening in my lifetime though.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I agree-- in this modern age, all utilities should be run as a local co-op, at most, a multi-county enterprise.  If a group of cooperative co-ops wish to pool their resources to buy a commercial project, that's fine.  But never the reverse-- the commercial project should always be the client (i.e. under the watchful eyes) of the co-op or co-ops.   Never, EVER the reverse.

[Roland Deschain]

I like the idea of a co-op, where the citizens who use the service and pay for it, actually own it. The more you use, the more you pay, as it is now, is a good model, but factor in the ownership of its users, and you essentially get a company that looks after its users instead of exploiting them. This would still need oversight, but it's a step in the right direction. Look at the large energy corporations around the world, and the abuses they get away with, and it's easy to see what's best.

Unfortunately, you'd first have to convince the people that it's in their best interests to follow this model, and looking at how people react to even just socialism in some places (eg - USA), not to mention the dream of being rich fostered by so many, I can see that it's going to be a long haul to get there. Star Trek had many things right, and socialised services just one of them.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Yes--- a system that is run by greed, or how rich can you get, will always-- without fail-- become evil.