Consciousness, Nature, the Myth of A.I., & Reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo&list=WL&index=68 

 Research on Consciousness has exploded in the last quarter century. The piece at the link above relates some of the surprising discoveries. One of them is that it's highly likely an organism does not have to be as intelligent as Homo sapiens to possess Consciousness. Another is that it's even more likely something has to be biologically alive in order to possess Consciousness. 

 That means: don't believe the hype being promulgated by Mega Corporations about Artificial Intelligence . The original definition of A.I. was:  an artificial machine conscious of itself as a separate "being". Tech Whiz Kids are nowhere near creating such a machine. A bunch of algorithms which can predict certain outcomes or make certain choices based on input does not constitute a conscious being.  A.I. does not presently exist... and likely never will. I leave it to you to guess as to why certain large corporations want us to believe it does exist. 

 The research also shows that, despite some people believing otherwise, human beings are a part of Nature. We are not separate from, superior to, or in any way above Nature. We are Nature.  That is one of the core principles of ecoethics and ecocentrism.  To believe we must conquer Nature gives us license to destroy Nature, and too many people appear to be doing exactly that... often at will.

 Finally, what the brain perceives are energy impulses coming from objects. Everything is energy. Matter consists of bundles of energy vibrating much more slowly than light, or gamma rays, or radio waves, etc. The implication of it all is clear: all things are made of one thing, and it's all part of a whole. 

 It's encouraging to live in a time when researchers in all fields of Natural Science are seriously studying Reality, and discovering (or confirming) its intrinsic properties. 

 The real mystery is Consciousness. If it only exists in sentient beings, or there as well as elsewhere, then does that mean all sentient beings have intrinsic value? I think it does, which means we humans need to discard our hubris and view all beings possessing sentience as having much more than only utilitarian value.*** That's another core principle of ecoethics  and ecocentrism. 

***For example, the way in which elephants and certain other domesticated and wild animals are treated by some humans (all around the world) is outrageous, immoral, and unethical.

Going Green without adopting an ecocentric (as opposed to anthropocentric) worldview is, in my opinion, an oxymoron.  It's counterintuitive.  It will result in failure.  No sustainability for Spaceship Earth.  Luckily for us, many people appear to be recognizing such.

............................. 

Not only my opinion. Be Well

Land Use RE: Energy and Mining Resource Extraction Footprints

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921001646?dgcid=raven_sd_via_email

In case the link doesn't work---

From the journal, Ecological Economics, Volume 187 -

"Energy matters: Mitigating the impacts of future land expansion will require managing energy and extractive footprints".

High Tech (& Tech in general) gobbles up such a large amount of natural minerals, and all of us gobble up such a large amount of fossil fuel energy, that those two categories have an ecological footprint almost as large as agriculture when it comes to the disruption of natural habitats.  This is one of the main reasons that biodiversity is rapidly plunging.

The authors of the above article propose mitigation actions for the future.

The human land use dilemma is growing, and overconsumption plays a major role.  Here's only one example:  no one really needs a new cell phone every year or two.  The production of just ONE phone uses up about 500 pounds of natural resources, and that requires more & more extraction from the land.

As to energy, nearly all of us in highly developed countries use too much of that.  The situation must undergo a paradigm shift if the world is to achieve sustainability.

The entire downhill slide we're on as a species is driven by the rat race of unlimited growth and too much consumption.  From what I've seen, too many people seem to believe we can continue on with both of those if we just convert to a Green Economy.  That's erroneous thinking.  Many studies have shown it to be so.  Links to some of them have been posted on this venue for the past year-plus.  "Going Green" and continuing on with the growth & consumption of the past decades simply are not compatible.

Ecological economics and the concept of a Steady State Economy have been around for years and years.  They've been marginalized and denigrated by the "growth" Establishment, particularly by the Plutocrats (both private and public).

If we are to survive and thrive, it's time for a major change.  To overcome the Establishment propaganda, education - formal & informal - and activism are key.

...................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Ten Essentials

 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629617304413#sec0080

The article, found in the Journal Energy Research & Social Science Volume 40, is titled "Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions, transformations and climate change research".  According to its multiple authors, if we as a species are to transition to a low-carbon and sustainable world, then there must be a paradigm shift in research approaches, entrenched disciplines, institutions, and political systems.  Researchers thus far have been great at grasping the problem and proposing solutions, but not so great at identifying HOW to make the transition happen.

The article at the link above is about three years old.  I'm curious as to whether or not any of the "ten essentials" have been implemented anywhere.  Some of you may know the answer to that.

.......................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Various Considerations in Ecological Economics and Sustainability

 1.  Increased efficiency and curtailing the expansion of material stocks in the UK:

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344920302780#bib0035

    Title - "Stock-flow relations in the socio-economic metabolism of the United Kingdom 1800–2017".

Socio-economic metabolism refers to a society's use of biophysical resources (i.e., energy and materials), a key factor in the sustainability arena.

................................

2.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629615300827

    Title - "How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions".

When I last taught Ecology (at the college level, in the 1990's), the conventional wisdom was:  it takes about forty years for a society to change from one primary energy source to another.  That is being re-evaluated.

...............................

3.  The term, "economic growth", sounds really great, but is it?  When thinking about the topic, too many people have faulty assumptions and tend to ignore two of the main effects of econ growth:  income inequality, and gross pollution of our biosphere.

    

    https://steadystate.org/who-does-economic-growth-serve/

    The author, Brian F. Snyder, is an assistant professor of environmental science at Louisiana State University.

................................

Not only my opinion.  Stay Well

Sustainability re: transport industry, decarbonization, lithium, magnesium, energy, & a decent living, Plus commentary on world efforts

 2020 research - Two important views---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X20300961

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512

At least read the Abstracts and Conclusions.

Commentary on world efforts---

Public officials, researchers, the business community, & others in the EU (in general) - especially in Germany, Ireland, Denmark, The Netherlands, Austria, & Portugal (mea culpa if I left out a country) - AND in other parts of the world are working hard to develop & implement sustainable policies geared toward saving organized human existence on this planet.  Kudos to all of them.

With some significant exceptions, the USA is light-years behind in those efforts.  As we all know, that's especially true for the last four years or so, particularly in the national government.  The current Administration is working hard to reverse gains made in the sustainability arena.  That, along with other egregious actions, has made the USA an object of pity - as well as a laughingstock - in the eyes of most of the world.  On top of all that, our "Leader" has some chance of getting re-elected shortly.  It's truly mind-boggling.  His chances of re-election should be extremely close to zero... or ZERO.  Thanks to Edward Bernays style molding of the public mind plus a huge dose of ignorance, those chances are higher.  It's all very Orwellian.  Life is full of paradoxes, eh?

The human dilemma we face consists of a socio-ecological-economic catastrophe which already has started, coupled with an ongoing belief by too many in the practices of unlimited growth, overconsumption, and overexploitation of resources.  In far too many ways, we've become too anthropocentric, as opposed to ecocentric.  Fortunately, that's beginning to change.  Keep in mind, though -

TICK-TOCK.

.............................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

A Paradigm Shift in Ethics is Needed for the Journey to Sustainability

Preface

Philosophy is the study of knowledge, being, and reality.  One of its branches is Ethics, the study of values and behavior.  Ethics is concerned with "right" and "wrong", and in particular, with what is "good" for individuals and society.  Its three primary principles are:  respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.  A simple definition would be:  a code of conduct for human good.  Socrates was the Father of Ethics in the western world.
................................
The Ethical Problem in Relation to the Cessation of Environmental Damage

As detailed to a degree in previous posts here, the Powers-That-Be in most countries around the world have opted (for decades) to implement neoliberal economics in their lands... resulting in severe, worldwide environmental damage.  Despite efforts to mitigate that damage, it continues to this day.  Most ecologists agree that's because, rather than Aldo Leopold's "Land Ethic" (or something similar), countries have chosen to follow the neoliberal path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.

Even in countries that are attempting to "go green", the prevailing ethic is "growthism" not sustainability.  More and more perpetual growth apparently is mistakenly viewed as "good" for society.  History disagrees with that assessment.

Despite the shrinking of nonrenewable natural resources and the overharvesting of renewable natural resources, human populations (in general) have been indoctrinated to accept without question the idea that economic growth must continually expand for the good of individuals and society.  "Going green" supposedly will solve the problems of ecological/environmental damage.  That most likely will help a bit, but only a bit.  Much more is needed.  Here's why.

1.  The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it only can be transformed from one type to another.
2.  Because of entropy, every time energy is transformed some of it is lost as dispersed heat.  "Lost" means it's no longer available to do "work" because it's too dispersed.
3.  As a result, because of entropy nothing can be 100% recycled.  So, nonrenewable mineral resources (e.g., rare earth minerals which are gobbled up by high tech industries) will continue to shrink.
4.  Although solar energy is renewable, it obviously has to be captured.  If the rate of consumption of solar power exceeds the rate of the in-flow and capture of solar energy, then sooner or later, consumption has to be limited.
5.  While the stock of solar energy (the sun) is super-abundant, the in-flow and capture of it are limited.
6.  Whether "green" or not, all material economic growth consumes resources and produces wastes.  That's even true of service industries such as health care, education, taxi service, tourism, and others.
7.  Ever-increasing growth results in an ever-increasing flow of "throughput":
resources from Earth's ecosystems to the economic subsystem, and then back to ecosystems as wastes.  Sooner or later, throughput will exceed Earth's resource regeneration and waste assimilation capacities.
8.  Renewable resources, such as ocean fish and trees, are being overharvested already.  More and more economic growth will exacerbate the problem.

All the above means sustainability is nowhere in sight.  It also means that, first and foremost, we have a massive ethical problem.  Without a paradigm shift in the cultural and ethical thinking & behavior of humans, serious ecological damage on Earth will continue.  Why?  Because the Powers-That-Be are firmly locked onto the path of unlimited growth and overconsumption.  The only way to change that is from the ground up, not the top down... and, in my opinion, that won't happen until a majority of us (or at least a significantly large number of us) adopt what ecologists call "eco-ethics" (or ecoethics).  Only then will people gravitate to demanding the implementation of ecological economics.
...................................

Here's a declaration by which to live---
https://www.int-res.com/articles/esep/2002/E21.pdf
[It will warm your heart.]

It's a short read.  Have a look, and, as best you can, try to live by it.  Thanks.  Younger generations thank you as well.
[NOTE--- At the above page, the print can be enlarged by moving your cursor to the lower right-hand side.]
...................................
Not only my opinion.  Stay Well