2 ms·

Relativism is in contradiction with the empirical facts. Modern industrial societies are 'better' than traditional ones in the sense that 99% of the people chos

Relativism is in contradiction with the empirical facts. Modern industrial societies are 'better' than traditional ones in the sense that 99% of the people chose an industrial lifestyle over a preindustrial one, if given the choice. This happens everywhere: in Europe, in Americas, in Asia, in Africa. The people have voted, quasi-unanimously, with their feet. I'm saying that while also believing that modern industrial lifestyle is unsustainable, ecologically and psychologically, and that the Amish have a better long-term handle on sustainable life that most of us. Alas, humans are notoriously poor at long-term planning, and human aggregates even worse.

pbak 5y ago
In regards to your first sentence : The text was long, you probably missed it. It do now preach moral relativism. I preach against civilizational value judgment relatively with one's own. As I wrote : I argue against making value judgments and standards for "civilizations", even concerning dead children. It is dangerous. It is safer for all to reason factually with precisely defined groups and situations, limited in time and space. --- I don't argued to reject industrial approach wholesale either, as long as it's voluntary. As for itself, it has to be changed, sure, it must evolve, and get out of agriculture, IMHO. It's still an extremely useful tool in humanity's survival toolkit. In regards to the rest and to borrow your metaphor: My parents voted one way. I voted the reverse way quite recently, due to some ills you mentioned. After working around the planet for a while, I also didn't share some of the values anymore. Take this take from someone who's both an emigrant and re-emigrant: as with political votes, people vote either when promises are made, or because they want to effect change. One way or another. So there you go if we're to debate that.. But I believe it's another subject entirely.
- neom 5y ago
  You're arguing a lot in circles, sometimes against yourself, to prove nuanced points that are mostly moot. This is usually indicative of someone who has underlying prejudice toward the issue.
  - pbak 5y ago
    So, subtle insinuations settle the discussion ?

pbak 5y ago

In regards to your first sentence : The text was long, you probably missed it. It do now preach moral relativism. I preach against civilizational value judgment relatively with one's own. As I wrote : I argue against making value judgments and standards for "civilizations", even concerning dead children. It is dangerous. It is safer for all to reason factually with precisely defined groups and situations, limited in time and space. --- I don't argued to reject industrial approach wholesale either, as long as it's voluntary. As for itself, it has to be changed, sure, it must evolve, and get out of agriculture, IMHO. It's still an extremely useful tool in humanity's survival toolkit. In regards to the rest and to borrow your metaphor: My parents voted one way. I voted the reverse way quite recently, due to some ills you mentioned. After working around the planet for a while, I also didn't share some of the values anymore. Take this take from someone who's both an emigrant and re-emigrant: as with political votes, people vote either when promises are made, or because they want to effect change. One way or another. So there you go if we're to debate that.. But I believe it's another subject entirely.

neom 5y ago
You're arguing a lot in circles, sometimes against yourself, to prove nuanced points that are mostly moot. This is usually indicative of someone who has underlying prejudice toward the issue.
- pbak 5y ago
  So, subtle insinuations settle the discussion ?