Matt, growth in any sense is unsustainable by definition. Things grow for a time, then stop growing. The only thing that grows forever is the size of the universe, and we don't even know that for certain. The increasing entropy of the universe means that nothing can grow forever (except maybe the entropy of the universe). It's very easy to demonstrate that infinite growth is impossible for us since we live on a finite planet. I won't entertain fantasies of space colonization since it ranks as one of the least likely things to ever happen, but even if we could colonize other planets, this would not free us of the limits of nature, it would just push them a little further. In fact, if you wanted everyone on the planet to have the US standard of living, we would need to colonize 5 planets with the same resources as Earth.

I don't believe in trying to get people to change their behavior by preaching to them; that is not my goal. However, I think it important to understand the role that certain beliefs and ideas have in shaping people's behavior. In order to change people's behavior, then, you have to change these beliefs and ideas. If people understood that real wealth comes from nature, not money, then we would probably not be in such a mess as we are in now. Changing ideas takes time, but I don't think any amount of new technology will make society sustainable so long as it is based on unsustainable principles.

Matt, yare correct that nothing is infinitely sustainable - however, we can rely on the Sun for a few billion years.  A practically infinite time period.  Many resources on Earth will be depleted within 10-100 years.  It's the resource you run out of first that counts.

Matt, that is an unreasonable and not particularly helpful definition of "sustainability."

Sustainability should be taken to mean "sustainable on a timeframe relevant to human existence."

Of course, nothing is sustainable on the timeframe of the universe because the universe will eventually experience heat death.

There will always be limits imposed by nature, regardless of what technology we invent. All we can do is push the limits a little further; we can never eliminate them. Your belief that technology has freed us from the limits imposed by nature is a very dangerous one and is partially responsible for the mess we are now in.

I strongly disagree with your contention that beliefs and ideas rarely shape behavior. The behavior of western economies is based on the belief that infinite growth on a finite planet is possible, and in the aforementioned belief that technology has freed us from natural limits. Rational economic activity is impossible so long as it is guided by these principles.

Finally, I completely disagree with you that no principle is sustainable. I will now provide a single counter-example which refutes this claim:

A sustainable principle that lasts forever: society should only use as many resources as nature is capable of providing us with on a sustainable basis given the technology that is available.

This is a sustainable principle that would apply to any society regardless of where it is located on the timeline of the universe. It is true now, it was true in the past, and it will be true in the future. Indefinitely.

Right now we use resources faster than they are replenished by nature due to the belief that technology has freed us from natural limits and the belief that wealth = money.

It is ridiculous to claim that beliefs and ideas don't shape people's behavior. If people respond to math, then there is an implicit belief that math is a good tool to solve problems. So the belief that math works to solve problems is involved with using math to solve any problems. No one would use it if they didn't believe it would work.

"Pointing out how great an idea it would be for us all to live beneath our means is literally NEVER caught on."

I agreed with everything you said up until this. You take a narrow view of human nature, probably focusing on current western civilization as a basis for your conclusions. The idea that people are naturally materialistic simply doesn't hold up given a proper review of the evidence from anthropology and the other social sciences.

Humans have existed for 250,000 years. Civilization, broadly defined as an urban society, has existed for approximately 10,000 years. Modern civilization, broadly defined as the use of extraneous energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) as a replacement for muscle power, has existed for 200 years. This is just to put things in perspective.

Anthropologists have studied groups of people that live the same way people lived more than 10,000 years ago. What is striking about these studies is that regardless of where in the world these groups are located, they all share some common traits: lack of social hierarchy and the existence of an "ecological ethic" which recognizes human dependency on nature and the natural limits which limit human activity. In fact, many of the earliest urban societies show a similar structure, so it is not necessary that an urban society lacks an ecological ethic. These early societies limited their extraction of resources to ensure that the resources would continue to be available. Fishermen only fished at a certain rate, farmers only farmed at a certain rate, woodcutters only cut wood at a certain rate, etc.

I think what happens is that the ecological ethic results in prosperity, and society becomes addicted to the resulting prosperity. The addiction to prosperity causes the "ecological ethic" to be replaced with an ethic based on maintaining and increasing prosperity, which could be termed, for lack of a better word, "materialism."

So, your assertion that "living beneath our means has literally NEVER caught on" is false. This is the way people lived for 240,000 years. It is our idea of "materialism" that has caught on recently in the last 10,000 years of human existence. The loss of the ecological ethic is not even a necessary consequence of civilization, it is just something that tends to happen. "Materialism" is based on a false idea of human nature. People can never attain a permanent lasting increase in happiness regardless of what they consume. Whatever new heights are attained by the individual, they will always return to their "baseline" level of happiness. Materialism is a dead end since it is based on the idea of permanent happiness through the increasing acquisition of material goods. Understanding and accepting this is necessary in order for society to be rational. Only a society that is rational can be sustainable; an irrational society will consume all the resources necessary for its existence and then collapse.

"The basic idea is that if we just exerted some self-control we'd never risk starvation. That's certainly one way to look at things"

No, you still aren't getting it. We are depleting resources faster than they can be replenished by natural systems. We would need 1.4 earths just to maintain the status quo. If you wanted everyone to live a decent life, the life we in the West enjoy, then you would need closer to 5 earths.

The idea is that we can either use resources faster than they can be replenished by natural systems, or we can use resources at a rate that is equal to or less than the rate at which they are restored. The former is plainly suicidal, while the latter is sustainable. Of course, we can always never account for natural disasters, but that is besides the point.

"That's exactly what one should expect to happen. Your problem isn't with our rational economic choices, it's with the fact that humans (particularly in groups)"

That's precisely the point I was making in my other discussion with you - when it comes to human communities, size matters, and "small is beautiful." Rational human behavior isn't possible in groups that are too large. Human behavior CAN be rational, given the right circumstances. Observers throughout history have noted that the larger the group becomes, the less the individual can be heard. Furthermore, the messages that get through to a large group must be aimed at the lowest common denominator so they are aimed at targeting the emotions. Both democracy and rationality suffer as a result.

"For example, something you might not have considered is that warfare and waste are good. At least, as good as anything else is. The human race is the result of evolution, which is literally the longest war in history. Competition removes the weaker players and leaves resources behind for the stronger players. So the overall strength of the population increases. And evolution hasn't stopped. We're still engaged in a war against all the other things in the world. Just because we got out ahead of them doesn't mean they aren't constantly trying to overtake us. If we consciously stop advancing our capabilities we might as well lay down and die. It's the same thing."

Social Darwnism is based on a false analogy between the survival of species and the survival of individuals.

Species compete with other species and the most ADAPTABLE survive (not necessarily the strongest or largest - in fact, during one ice age, nothing over 10 lbs survived).

A species is made stronger through competition with other species. Competition amongst the same species can actually make it weaker than a species which cooperates with itself. Cooperation between members of the same species give it a synergy which allow it to out-compete species which are less cooperative with each other. In fact, that's exactly what humans did! We are extremely pathetic creatures without our brains. If we didn't have brains and the ability to cooperate with each other, we would have no chance of surviving in the animal kingdom.

So, the analogy between competition between species and competition between members of the same species doesn't work.

Advancing technology is not the same thing as warring with other species. In war the aim is to eliminate the opponent. In nature, if one species depends on another species as a food source, then wiping that species out results in the other species' extinction. So nature does not war with itself. There is competition but there is also BALANCE.

"The philosophical issue, for me, is that things only "matter" as long as they're remembered"

But why should this be the case at all? Wittgenstein would have a field day with this - the question of whether or not something "matters" is a nonsensical question. Things can never "matter" in any objective sense. Things "matter" only subjectively, in relation to some individual who is doing the perceiving. Things only matter to individuals. So, if all individuals died, then yes, nothing would matter - but the fact that nothing would matter wouldn't matter, either.

Furthermore, this view seems anthropocentric. Do things matter to animals? They certainly seem to, at least in a primitive way. Animals at least want to continue living, so their life must "matter" to them in some primitive way.

Finally, space colonization ranks as one of the least likely things to ever occur. I suggest you read this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/why-not-space/

"We
are depleting resources faster than they can be replenished by
natural systems. We would need 1.4 earths just to maintain the status
quo. If you wanted everyone to live a decent life, the life we in the
West enjoy, then you would need closer to 5 earths."

>>Sure,
at the present level of efficiency. But this forum is named after an
organization that has already demonstrated nearly an order of
magnitude decrease in the cost of a tractor. Does the same thing,
only it costs 1/10 the price. THAT is what happens when people keep
trying. You're advocating we simply give up. I don't agree with that.
It would absolutely break my heart if the human race adopted a
"sustainability above all else" ethic. It would mean
stagnation, unnecessary suffering, death, and irrelevance. There are
plenty of mysteries we still haven't investigated. Until we've shone
a light down EVERY alley, and confirmed that there are no more clever
solutions, we can't stop trying. Or, to put it in interwebs speak:
simplistic linear model is simplistic. You're assuming we never make
logarithmic or exponential improvements.

"Rational
human behavior isn't possible in groups that are too large. Human
behavior CAN be rational, given the right circumstances."

>>Rationality
is overrated. It's applicable, let alone useful, in limited
situations. It's not a panacea. I think you're just using
"rationality" as a code word for "doing what I agree
with."

"Social
Darwnism is based on..."

>>I
think you might want to look up what "social darwinism" is
before you accuse me of advocating it. I said the human race is
engaged in a war against all the other living things in the world,
not that the Aryans are engaged in a war against everyone else.

"Cooperation
between members of the same species give it a synergy which allow it
to out-compete species which are less cooperative with each other."

>>Sure,
but the last time I checked no one cared what ants wanted.

"So,
the analogy between competition between species and competition
between members of the same species doesn't work."

>>Oh,
I get it. You mean the "war can be good" part. I didn't
expand on that properly. The evolution that happens when two humans
fight is one of ideas. There is nothing quite like an existential
crisis to sharpen the creative faculties. The thing about the
evolution of ideas is that it IS cooperative. It takes two to tango.
Both parties have an equal chance of coming up with a new idea and
winning the fight. However, WHICHEVER party wins, they will still
spread their new idea to the rest of the human race. EVERYONE
benefits from the outcome of conflict. The outcome of
inter-human-race conflict is innovation...and you can't put
innovation back in the bottle. Once it's out it's out for good. 

"In
war the aim is to eliminate the opponent."

>>Not
a student of war, huh? "The
theory of warfare tries to discover how we may gain a preponderance
of physical forces and material advantages at the decisive
point." http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Principles/ "War
is regarded as nothing but the continuation of state policy with
other
means." http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_von_clausewitz_2.html Read
some Clausewitz. War is a tool to accomplish an objective. The
objective can be anything at all. At its most generic, war is merely
a competition to see who gets to impose their will on another. Who
gets to decide what's going to happen? Who is willing to sacrifice to
achieve their vision?

"...the
question of whether or not something "matters" is a
nonsensical question. Things can never "matter" in any
objective sense. Things "matter" only subjectively, in
relation to some individual who is doing the perceiving. Things only
matter to individuals. So, if all individuals died, then yes, nothing
would matter - but the fact that nothing would matter wouldn't
matter, either."

>>Congratulations.
You might have started out with a knee-jerk rejection, but you still
ended up re-deriving the philosophical proof. Most people don't get
that far. You only stopped short of noting that, at the moment,
people still exist, and therefore it matters to them whether or not
they continue to matter. QED.

"... space
colonization ranks as one of the least likely things to ever occur"

>>That's
not what your source concluded. "This
century, we will enter a new phase, untested by humanity. Dismissing
the challenge this presents by looking beyond to a future in space is
one of the best ways to ensure that such a future never comes to
pass." Mr. Murphy only pointed out that space colonization is
not a solution to our current problems. A conclusion I heartily agree
with. I bring it up as an inevitability. It might not happen
tomorrow, but it will happen. Or it won't. If it doesn't happen the
human race will be swallowed by the sun and nothing we ever did will
matter. If it does happen we'll have a chance to go on mattering.
Personally I'm rooting for the latter.

I only have time for a few brief remarks:

>>Every time they were offered, or confronted with, better technology they adopted as much of it as fast as their primitive culture could handle.

Again, this is a very narrow view. Many indigenous groups violently resisted the imposition of "better technology." I think this pretty clearly shows that they were content to live without it! Unless you want to take an extremely ethnocentric and arrogant view and declare that "they just didn't know better." But then, they could just make the same argument about you!

>>Oh...I
thought you were going to say the trait they shared was a pathetic
refusal to assert themselves. Sure, you can rely on filling an
ecological niche for a long time, but not forever. The dinosaurs were
pretty comfortable too. I bet at the end there they really wished
they had taken the time to invent a way to deflect giant space rocks.
You know, instead of harmonizing with nature and whatnot. Entropy is
an evil bitch. It doesn't matter how far ahead of her you get, she
will catch up if you stop moving.

This is a false dichotomy. I don't understand why think "asserting themselves" has anything to do with "living within their resource base." It is not the case that either society asserts itself or lives within its resource base, unless you define "assert itself" as living beyond its resource base, in which case "asserting themselves" amounts to suicide. Societies that live within their resource base survive and prosper; those that don't eventually perish. Living within a resource base is not the same thing as "filling an ecological niche," this is a false analogy. A society can live within multiple ecological niches and within its resource base.

>>What I see is a competition between fear and desire. Some cultures are too fearful, so they don't change anything.

You mean, like how our culture refuses to change anything?

Some cultures are too desirous, so they will do anything to get what
they want. The desirous ones tend to become more powerful than the
fearful ones, but they also tend to over-reach and collapse. Just
because the fearful ones manage to live for 10,000 years in the
cracks between the desirous ones doesn't mean they're superior

Again, you are presenting a false dichotomy. To put it in your terms: a desirous culture could exist with a proper amount of fear. The proper amount of fear would prevent it from exceeding its resource base, but by being desirous it would still advance. SO the choice is not between fear and desire, that is too black and white. Instead there are degrees of both fear and desire; a functioning society has the "right amount" of both. Enough desire so that society advances; enough fear to keep it from over-reaching and collapsing.

Correct,
but after several cycles they will have a nifty digital watch, which
they didn't have before, and which grants them more capabilities than
they would have had otherwise. It's all about capabilities. Tools.
Humans are nothing without tools...just another primate.

I agree, but you have to show that the tools contribute in some way to the survival of the species, on this account. If the use of a particular tool requires that society exceed its resource base, then it can't be said to contribute to survival of the species, because the use of the tool will eventually cause society to deplete its resources and perish. Now, some tools might increase the amount of resources which are available to society, and these would be excluded from this argument. But it is enough to say that not all tools fall into this category.

Only
those who dare greatly can achieve greatly. How would you define the
difference between stupidity and bravery?

"Bravery" is a mean between two extremes; cowardice and rashness (i.e., stupidity).

You're advocating we simply give up. I don't agree with that.
It would absolutely break my heart if the human race adopted a
"sustainability above all else" ethic. It would mean
stagnation, unnecessary suffering, death, and irrelevance. There are

I have never once advocated that we simply give up.

Again, your view of reality is too black and white. You seem to view things in black and white terms, when almost nothing in reality works that way. There is a whole spectrum between extremes. So, you have presented another false dichotomy.

The choice is not between "progress" and "sustainability." You can have both, as I have explained above.

>>Rationality
is overrated. It's applicable, let alone useful, in limited
situations. It's not a panacea. I think you're just using
"rationality" as a code word for "doing what I agree
with."

Rationality in this context entails the recognition that certain behaviors contribute to survival and others don't. Being rational means making this recognition and then acting on it. So what you say above is not the case: rationality is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for survival. To understand this better, maybe it would help to distinguish between a behavior and a faculty. A person can use their rationality, and a person's behavior can be rational - these are two different things. I think a certain amount of the former is necessary for the latter, and that the latter is a necessary condition for "sustainable behavior."

think you might want to look up what "social darwinism" is
before you accuse me of advocating it. I said the human race is
engaged in a war against all the other living things in the world,
not that the Aryans are engaged in a war against everyone else.

My apologies, I thought that you meant to imply social darwinism when you wrote: "Competition removes the weaker players and leaves resources behind for the stronger players." The wording is ambiguous. Are "players" members of the same species or members of different species, or the species themselves? So you can see how I made the inference I made, but I understand what you mean now.

">>Sure,
but the last time I checked no one cared what ants wanted."

I fail to see how this anything but a non-sequiter.

">>Not
a student of war, huh? "The"

This is irrelevant. You were trying to draw an analogy between human war and some principal of nature. None of the various definitions you provide are sufficient to establish the analogy you seek to establish. The last definition by Clausewitz is simply a very bad definition, as it could be applied to a lot of things which we don't normally consider to be war, such as, the playing of a board game with friends.

To make my point clearer, substitute "total war" for "war." Only humans engage in total war, and nature only "wars" with itself in the broadest sense of the definition. This does not negate any of my other claims.

"noting that, at the moment,
people still exist, and therefore it matters to them whether or not
they continue to matter"

Right. It matters to (some) people that people exist. It is completely subjective.

"If it doesn't happen the
human race will be swallowed by the sun and nothing we ever did will
matter."

The universe will probably eventually experience heat death. So, even if we colonize the entire universe, nothing humanity ever did will matter. I hope you see the fallacy of your reasoning in this example. I fail to see how extending the duration of humanity has any effect whatsoever on the subjective importance that people attach to certain things. Let's look at the phrase "nothing we ever did will matter." This could mean, "nothing we ever did will ever matter." This is plainly false, since things matter to both you and I right now at this moment in time. So the future hypothetical end of the human race has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not things matter. If you are taking "nothing we ever did will matter in the future, after people are gone," then this is self-evident from what has already been said both here and above.

Furthermore, you are equivocating with the word "matters." Before, you established that things only matter to people. If people disappeared, it wouldn't matter, because there would be no people to determine whether or not it mattered. It's completely subjective. Of course, in this example I am ignoring the existence of intelligent aliens for whom our existence matters, but in that case, you can just extend "people" to include them as well. When you say that "things matter to people," what follows is that if people disappeared, nothing would matter after people disappeared. When you say that "if people disappeared, nothing we ever did will matter," this could imply that things "matter" in some objective sense, as if things could "matter" to the universe. But this is plainly equivocating since there are these two distinct senses of the word "matters." This equivocation can be avoided if you take "nothing we ever did will matter" to mean "nothing we ever did will matter after people are gone," but this is the point that was already proven.

"don't think there is any such thing as objective morality. What is "right" or what "should" be are subjective; arbitrary. The concept is meaningless if it is not attributed to the person making the arbitrary judgment. So, "that is wrong" is a meaningless jumble of syllables."

Woah, let me stop you right there.

A naturalist perspective does not contain any easily deducible system of objective morality, that is true, but it is not true that it is impossible to arrive at an objective morality through naturalism (btw, "Naturalism" = atheism, more or less).

One possible route is utilitarianism or some variant of it. All people are born with an innate sense of "good" and "bad" based on their innate pleasure/pain responses. So, it is "good" for each person to get what they want. On this level, morality is subjective since it depends on the individual. However, based on this we can say that it is an objective truth that "each person wants what they want, and each person thinks that it is good to get what they want." Now, whenever we say (as an individual) that it is "bad" for us to get what we want, it is because this keeps us from getting something else that we want MORE. So, we can adjust our formula: what is good to the individual = getting what the individual wants as long as this does not prevent the individual from getting something which is desired more.

So, EACH person thinks that it is good for them to get what they want. From this we can derive an OBJECTIVE truth: It is good for EACH person to get what they want.

Now, we get some conflicts of interest. Some people want something that prevents others from getting what they want. To resolve this, you have to consider "the greatest good for the greatest number." A particular action is good if the good that results from it outweighs the bad that results from it, considering the impact on everyone who is effected. One might argue that this is reductive since "good and bad" have not been defined, but remember, we defined good as "getting what you want." So if an action results in more people getting what they want then people not getting what they want, it is good. Obviously, we also have to consider what it is that people want, and what it is that they would get, from a particular action, since not all "wants" are equal. A person's desire to remain alive might conflict with another person's desire for more money. This is easily resolved though since everyone would assign a greater weight to "life" than "money," so that we can say that what would be gained by the person getting more money would be outweighed by what is lost by the person who loses their life.

Now, this might seem like an impossibly cumbersome system to be practical, but that is a common misunderstanding. Unfortunately I lack the space to explain why, but you can easily find out for yourself with a little research. For now I will just point to the fact that THERE ARE certain moral truths which virtually every human society recognizes. "Moral actions/moral thinking" could be described simply in evolutionary terms as patterns of thinking and behaving that occur with some regularity among all people. Those patterns of thinking/behaving which contributed to the survival of the group were retained, while those patterns of thinking/behaving which decreased the group's ability to survive were discarded. This could happen through "natural selection" working on the genes associated with certain patterns of behaving/thinking, but doesn't necessarily need to involve genes - see "memetics" for more on this point.

Like I said, not easily deducible. I have left out a lot but you can easily find more information if interested. It is possible to derive a coherent objective morality from naturalism.

"You're just leaving out the fact that an aggressive, expansionist society can increase its resource base faster than its needs."

Sure, but it also depletes its resources faster by expanding. The more a society expands the more resources are required simply for the maintenance of the infrastructure. Eventually, the costs of expansion outweigh what is gained through expansion. An expansionist, aggressive society is often less efficient than a non-expansionist society. This lack of efficiency is made up for by achieving economies of scale that aren't possible without expansion. Lack of efficiency can be made up for through economies of scale. The economies of scale are usually made possible by depleting resources faster than they can be replenished, and so are unsustainable. All empires eventually over-extend in an effort to maintain prosperity and then collapse. When they collapse, all the infrastructure they produced also collapses, resulting in the deaths of those who depend on that infrastructure.

What has occurred throughout history is that initial expansion brings prosperity which results in an addiction to expansion. Eventually a limiting scale is reached where the cost of expanding exceeds the gain. All empires eventually reach this limit and then cross it, resulting in collapse.

"If it doesn't matter that everyone eventually dies, then it doesn't matter that an expanding society might die off faster than a stable one. At least, according to your own argument."

So, by this reasoning, if everyone eventually dies, then it doesn't matter if you die today instead of after living a long and healthy life. Nice logic there.

I never said that it doesn't matter that everyone eventually dies. Certainly, it matters to us in the here and now. But if everyone WERE to die, it could no longer matter AFTER the fact. This is made obvious by the fact that something can only "matter" in a subjective sense.

Now, the argument I was making did not include the premise "it doesn't matter that everyone eventually dies." What I said was that if you were to die, then things would no longer matter to you after the fact. But the fact that you are now dead does not change the fact that things mattered to you during your lifetime. This remains an immutable truth regardless of your death. So, things still "matter" in the only valid sense of the word even if human extinction is inevitable. Things simply don't "matter" from the universe's perspective.

"All tools contribute to survival. Some more than others. Okay...maybe lawyers actually interfere with survival...but everything else helps"

You missed my point. All tools contribute to survival in one sense in that they extend man's capabilities. However, this always comes at a cost. All tools require the use of resources. If the use of a particular tool requires more resources than are made available through the use of that tool, then it does not contribute to survival. Sometimes, a particular technology is more trouble than it is worth.

"I must have missed that part. Could you rephrase it?"

I quote myself:
the choice is not between fear and desire, that is too black and white. Instead there are degrees of both fear and desire; a functioning society has the "right amount" of both. Enough desire so that society advances; enough fear to keep it from over-reaching and collapsing.

"What standard would you use to determine rational behavior? Survival?"

I assume that each person WANTS to survive. I am not using "rational" in any esoteric sense here. Take it to mean "sound reason" or "good sense."

IF a person wants to survive, then it is rational for them to act in ways that contribute to survival. This could be described as "rational behavior." If a person uses their rationality (i.e., logic) in order to ACT rationally, this could be described as "using one's rationality."

I don't see how chance prevents a person from being rational. We make the judgements we make based on the information we have available. A judgement is not rendered irrational simply because something which is completely unforeseeable might occur.

I don't distinguish between personal interest and cooperation in the way you suggest; I think it is yet another false dichotomy. Individual survival depends on cooperation; if people don't cooperate, they die. However, if people didn't care about their individual interest, they wouldn't cooperate - individual interest pushes people to cooperate with each other. So the two are mutually dependent on each other.

"But, you also want us to be sustainable, so you must want us to maximize the survival of all species as a whole."

This is not the definition of sustainability I put forward. You must be arguing against someone else, here. I use sustainability to mean that which can be continued into the forseeable future (which, as I already explained, is not rendered meaningless by the fact that we do not have access to perfect information). I do think it is worth preserving as much of the biosphere as possible, simply because we don't know how much of it is potentially useful. Aside from that, I think that the utilitarian morality that I briefly described earlier can be extended to animals because they feel pain and so can be said to "want" things just as much as people do (albeit in a different way).

"So, to determine whether or not behavior is rational, you'd have to understand the entire ecology of Earth's entire system of ecosystems."

Not true. The lack of perfect information does not prevent a judgement from being rational, which is obvious when we consider that we never have perfect information - like you said, that would require the knowledge of the entire universe. SO if this is your criteria for "rationality" then you have rendered the term meaningless. The lack of perfect information does not prevent a judgement from being rational; a judgement is rational or not based on ALL the information that is AVAILABLE. Otherwise, the result is radical skepticism, which says "it is impossible for us to ever know anything," to which one can reply, "how does one know this?"

"It's not irrelevant. You failed to understand my illustration because your definition of war is "eliminate the opponent." That is not my definition of war, so it's important to clarify for the illustration to be understood."

Sure, one can play around with word definitions until they make your argument correct, but that is sophistry. I'm not interested in these nitpicky arguments over word definitions. A good definition distinguishes the thing it describes from other things. So Clausewitz' definition, at least the part you provided, is a bad definition. No graduate thesis required, just the explanation just given. 

If you are using war to mean simply "competition," then to say that Nature wars with itself is overly simplistic. As I said before, there is competition in nature but also balance. If you are using war to mean "total war," then the analogy doesn't apply. So the analogy is either inadequate or false.

">>>Maybe we can survive the universe's heat death. The only way to find out is to make it that far."

Uh, okay.

You do realize that by that point we would have evolved into something completely different and unrecognizable as a human? So humans will eventually be gone regardless. "The fate of all species, on a long enough time scale, is extinction."

"from a naturalistic account, our "morals" are patterns of thinking and behaving that occur with some regularity. The reason they occur with some regularity is that they have contributed to the survival of the group."

Matt,

You are wearing me out, so this will likely be my last reply. I really don't have the time for this. This exchange is approaching book-length, yet very little has been accomplished. You seem to only want to argue over word definitions which is a complete waste of time for all involved. You seem more interested in being "proven right" in some pointless "debate" than in actually trying to figure out what I'm saying, when all I'm trying to do is communicate an idea. An idea cannot be communicated unless both parties want to communicate. If one party just wants to fight, no communication is possible. So I will not waste my time any longer.

">That doesn't make it morality. You can CALL it morality, but it's just instinct. There's nothing right or wrong about it. Dogs have instinct and we don't accuse them of being moral or immoral."

Okay, I choose to call it morality. Objective morality does not exist if you want morality to be something more than people's feelings.

You see, it all comes down to how you define words. You define words in whatever way is required to continue your pointless bickering.

"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dit+dilemmas"

DONE. In fact, discussed most of these in an intro to ethics class years ago. If you could be more specific...

">Nothing objective about that. You're defining it retroactively. If you can only determine what is "right" in hindsight then you don't have a moral system. Morality is prescriptive."

I never said that it is defined retroactively. Of course, one can never have PERFECT information, but given the information that is available, one can make predictions about how a given act is going to effect the group that is effected by it.

">And they're all crap. Utilitarianism is just one in a long list of attractive mistakes."

I guess we'll just take your word for it? Your word as a philosopher?

">See, I exist now. So things matter to me. It matters to me that things continue to matter. If the human race ceased to exist, what matters to me wouldn't matter, and I think that matters. "

Why does it matter to everyone else that it matters to you? Oh wait, it can't. It's subjective.

">Actually...it's funny you should bring that up. There is one way for objective morality to exist. That way is if our universe is (for lack of a better way to describe it) inside God's imagination. Then the "stuff" we are made of is God's thoughts (so to speak). Which would mean ALL of God's thoughts are made of the same stuff. Since right and wrong would be thoughts, just like us, and made of the same "stuff," just like us, morality would be objective."

Yeah, I'm familiar with this kind of crap. Without proving God exists the whole argument is unjustified. And usually this kind of argument is used to prove that God exists in a completely circular way.

"Logic and judgment aren't the same thing"

Of course they aren't - this is another case of you picking on the one interpretation that will allow you to continue your pointless bickering.

Allow me to explain:

(almost) All words and phrases can be interpreted in multiple ways. Someone who is looking for a fight/argument/debate - they will always choose the particular interpretation that keeps the "fight" going. They aren't interested in finding the truth, they are interested in keeping the fight going, and so, by default and often unconsciously, the person will "hear" whatever it is that is necessary to keep the fight going. That is why you continue to misinterpret - you aren't interested in figuring out what I'm saying, you're just interested in fighting and "being proven right."

So, to clarify my use of the terms logic and judgement:

"a sound judgement" is one that is made in accordance with the rules of logic and which relies on true premises.

Also, I never argued that the only decisions anyone ever makes are logical. If you weren't so hell bent on being proven right you might see that. I said that there is a distinction between the exercising of one's rationality and describing a behavior as rational.

"Most of the decisions we make are partially or mostly moral/ethical. There is no correct (as in logic or math) answer. That's why people disagree about so often."

Again, only if you define morality as being "deeper" than people's feelings about the subject. That is, only if you define morality out of existence does it not exist objectively.

>No it's not. The means ARE the ends. You don't get credit for having a good idea if you don't have a way to implement it.

Who says I don't have a way to implement it? Who says I want credit for it?
Means are not the same as ends - that's just flat out nonsense. One can discuss goals separately from how they are achieved. If fact, the means (how it is achieved) is often derived FROM the ends (goals). When this is the case, the ends are prior to the means.

">Sure. And it would be great if all the warlords would go to therapy. I can conjure up a neat little solution to our biggest problems too...as long as I ignore the way the world works."

This is a non-sequitur and also demonstrates your lack of charity... as if I haven't thought about "the way the world works" when making my arguments.  

"People do not think far enough ahead, or care about enough other people, to moderate their decisions. Hell, a bunch of the people in the world think the rest of the human race is a clear and present enemy."

Your family must not have loved you, then. If they did, you would know that people can care enough about other people to moderate their decisions. Small groups can achieve a similar cohesion to that possessed by families. Bigness destroys cohesion and the community.

""Sustainability is not the same as consistency. What is sustainable changes over time given different environmental circumstances." >Well what would you call it?"

I would call it sustainability!

Still getting hung up on definitions, I can see.

Let's use a water well as an example. A water well is a renewable resource because rainfall replenishes it. But, if too many people draw from the well at the same time, the well goes dry. Everyone dies of thirst. Sustainable use of the well means taking from the well at a rate that is equal to or less than the rate at which rainfall replenishes the well.

">Extinction is more often the result of an outside actor than internal collapse. A giant space rock or an invading predator. When a population merely over-expands it simply shrinks."

Okay, this doesn't negate any of the points I made, though.

"Sure, SLOWLY changing circumstances. The little bush people, who are so cute and wise and whatnot, aren't going to "adapt" their way out of the next space rock to hit Earth. It's not likely, but it doesn't have to be. On a long enough timeline everything happens. I'd rather spend my time learning how to survive, or even prevent, extinction-level events than gardening."

Well, you're finally revealing your ethnocentric (and borderline racist) arrogance, good to see it out in the open. Us white people sure have things figured out, don't we?

You equating "sustainability" with "little bush people" only demonstrates, yet again that you have no idea what is being said.

Sustainability involves the ability to adapt to circumstances no matter how quickly they change - see the water well example above.

You don't want to understand me, you only want to fight. So long as you don't want to understand me, you will never understand me. So long as you only want to fight, you will only fight.

"Goodness is not a quality that things possess"

"Meaning is not a part of the universe. It is something we invented and projected on to the universe."

No disagreement, here.

"Morality is not discoverable; it only exists inside our head. That's why we don't consider rocks, bushes, dogs or small children moral actors"

See me earlier comments RE: morality as our thoughts and feelings.

>Also, the mere fact that you had to say it "implies" what ought to be done is what damns your argument. You can't even use a firm word when you're arguing there's a firm connection

It does no such thing. I always say "implies" or "likely," because nothing is known with 100% certainty.

To elaborate, though:
1. survival is good (at least, most people are born with an innate sense that their own survival is good)
2. rationality is a tool
3. used properly, rationality can aid one's survival
4. from the individual's perspective they SHOULD use their rationality to aid in their survival.

">Well...you asserted your personal definition, which means you asserted your authority to define the word. I only pointed out that people who spend their lives specifically studying that word have more authority to define it than you."

Again, demonstrating your essentially authoritarian outlook on life. Definitions only have meaning by convention, because people give meaning to them. There is no real essence being referred to, only nominal essences. Thus, people who spend their whole life studying a word have no more authority to define it than anyone else. The meaning of the word is purely an agreement. If no agreement can be reached regarding definitions, then no conversation is possible - which is why I think this conversation is just about finished.

I pointed out obvious flaws with the definition which you ignored. You cannot address these flaws so you fall back on your argument from authority, which is not a valid argument.

The very fact that we are even having this discussion and have expended this much effort on this particular point further proves my earlier point, that you just want to fight and be seen as the victor. Have it, then. I no longer care. It no longer "matters" to me.

"Wow. All you had to do was scroll up. War is "policy by other means." Or, more tactically, "a preponderance of advantage at a decisive point."

Wow. Didn't know paraphrasing was against the rules, here. I fail to see how this changes the meaning significantly from what I said it was. But then, the definition is deliberately cryptic without further information. What the hell is a decisive point? Or a preponderance of advantage, for that matter? Again, bad definition.

">It's the least arbitrary thing I've ever found. I can derive it for you, but you probably aren't interested."

I'd love to see you try to prove that the statement "expanding into the universe for the purpose of extending the duration of the human race is good" is anything BUT arbitrary, especially given what's already been said about morality, rationality, the good, etc. I say go for it, old boy!

The day the universe wakes up and starts caring about things I will grant it some consideration. Until then, humanity is the only source of "value" I'm aware of. So, when it comes to defining what's important, humans are writing the rules. Where else are you going to look for appropriateness?

Okay, you say it matters for humans to expand into the galaxy or whatever sci-fi vision it is that you entertain. I say it doesn't matter. Who decides? Like I said, ARBITRARY. You provided the proof: because INDIVIDUAL humans assign value, and these "values" stand ONLY in relation to the person assigning the value.

Assume I think that the universe would be a better place without people (I don't really think this). This has equal weight to your subjective judgement that the universe is better with people. That is, you can't prove that it actually is better to anyone but yourself.

I didn't realize I was being so hard on you. We can stop if you want.

Sustainable resource use:

Using a resource at a rate that is equal to or less than the rate at which the resource is replenished by Nature.

Sound judgement:

"a sound judgement" is one that is made in accordance with the rules of logic and which relies on true premises.

Utilitarianism:

Utilitarianism is just one possible way to derive a morality that does not rely on God, although I have indicated two others in a previous post. "Moral facts" could be reducible to our thoughts and feelings, the existence of which is explained by evolution/social conditioning. Or, one could just say that moral facts are about the universe itself, as in Buddhism. This is at least as logical as the alternative systems of morality which rely on the existence of God.

The critique you gave of utilitarianism is essentially the argument given by George Mavrodes. This is an interesting argument.

A) it is in everyone's best interest for everyone (including me) to be moral.
B) it is in my best interest for everyone (including me) to be moral.
C) it is in my best interest for me to be moral.

Mavrodes criticizes the argument by saying that C does not follow from B. What does follow from B is "it is in my best interest for me to be moral if everyone else is moral."

Mavrodes also says that B may not follow from A. A can be interpreted either collectively or distributively (i.e., in the best interest of the group as a whole or in every individual's best interest).

So, if A is interpreted collectively, it can be rephrased as "it is in the group's best interest for everyone (including me) to be moral. If this is true, then B does not follow.

If A is interpreted distributively, then B does follow. Mavrodes argues that A, interpreted distributively, doesn't make sense, because it isn't clear that I won't benefit if everyone else acts morally but I act immorally.

This is a compelling argument, and many feel it is the deathblow for utilitarianism. However, many contemporary philosophers have taken up the defense of utilitarianism and have written compelling arguments addressing Mavrodes' criticism. The journal "Utilitas" is a good place to start.
(One example: Mill, Sentimentalism and the Problem of Moral Authority, DANIEL CALLCUT)

But, bear in mind that utilitarianism is just one possible way to arrive at a morality that doesn't depend on God. This together with the fact that others have already taken up the defense of utilitarianism, together with the fact that such a defense would require an amount of time and effort which isn't available to me at the moment, is why I have elected to not provide such a defense here.

Matt,

You said "Nope. The only objective truth you can derive from that is that each person thinks it is good to get what they want," Which could be taken to mean the same thing.

"From a distance it seems like you should be able to "score" everything and figure out an objective hierarchy."

There's that charity thing I just talked about - are you seriously assuming that no philosopher has taken this concern into consideration? That's about as generous as someone who denies anthropogenic global warming claiming that "it's sun cycles!" As if no climatologist has considered the effect of the sun in their models.

"...are you seriously assuming that no philosopher has taken this concern into consideration?"

>I'm sure they have. I'm also sure no one has coherently rebutted it. Also, there is more than one problem with utilitarianism, particularly depending on which shred you're talking about.

"...science can tell us what to value."

>I'd be interested in seeing your support for that conclusion.

This sounds like what you're saying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality

"It is a decidedly grey area whether stealing someone's pencil or stealing their pen would be the more immoral action. Yet is likely that, in the majority of cases, forcing one class of people to cover themselves at all times in burkas under threats of violence is less moral than empowering the freedom to choose. Moral scientists maintain that to argue otherwise is to ignore empiricism and history (which have taught humanity a great deal about wellbeing), as well as all the moral strides that various societies have made against sexism, racism, and other causes of suffering.^[8] Even with science's admitted degree of ignorance, and the various semantic issues, moral scientists can meaningfully discuss things as being almost certainly "better" or "worse" for promoting flourishing."

>I would divide the relevant issues into three categories: moral, ethical and legal. Morality is philosophical. It is concerned with what things "are" and how to describe Truth. Ethics is scientific. It is concerned with what morals people have, where they agree, and how to codify the shared morality so that people can live together on common ground. Legal is procedural. It is concerned with how people disagree on morality, how ethical rules break down, and how people can come to rely on a reasonably predictable and consistent rule set that covers a wide geographical and temporal area.

>You are trying to apply science to the philosophical area. You are not invalidating the is-ought problem, you're merely attempting to define it away by relegating Truth to a rounding error. "The science of morality" is focusing on ethics and pretending it covers all three categories. Ethics does yield to the scientific method. All you have to do is take a big poll, find out what people think, watch how they act, and plot a trend line. However, that tells you next-to-nothing about morality or law. Merely knowing what people think is moral doesn't tell you what is moral, and merely knowing what people disagree on doesn't tell you how to articulate rules they can all live under.

A comment to the OPs opening idea. It reminds me of the Skystone series of novels by Jack White. It is about the fall of the Romans in Britain and how the remaining people coped with the sudden void of infrastucture. In the first book the protagonist sees where things are headed and while everyone else is hoarding gold and currency, he begins to buy all kinds of resources that people are selling cheaply for money. He realizes that while the mindset of society is to accumulate money, you cannot eat it, wear it, or burn it for warmth, and hence has no inherent wealth.

Obviously the situation in the book and the way the world is now are very different. But the basic premise hold true, that currency is the idea of wealth, whereas land and resources hold true wealth.

@Daniel

Yes, that's pretty much what I had in mind.

There is also the old Indian saying "When the last tree has been felled, the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught - only then will you realize, money cannot be eaten."

Ummm...if you don't define morality as "good and bad" then what word do you use for "good and bad?" Are you just abandoning those concepts?

 

"Are we to assume that you've reviewed all the relevant arguments?"

>Yup. In the same way you don't feel the need to justify your conclusion with a bibliography, neither do I. Nothing you've said is new.

 

"You don't need to assume that something is "good" in order to demonstrate that this something has resulted in more prosperity for the group."

>Correct. One is an "is" and the other is an "ought." There is no connection between them. No amount of observing that something does or does not happen will ever justify a decision on what "should" happen. The right/wrong of it is inherently arbitrary.