[Ludi]

I never saw him lacking empathy.

Really? Never?

[mos6507]

His pathology had an edge that awakened in folks their moral outrage which was where his logic would often force one, in spite of how much you hated him for his apparent cold, lack of empathy, to recognize a truth of the paradox we speak of around this moral dilemma.

A little Monte goes a long way. It was nice when he bumped his head in here periodically to stir up the newbies. But then he'd outlive his welcome.

I think a lot of the people who picked fights with him like me already understand the moral dilemma well enough and don't need his condescension.

his ecological understanding of overshoot was impeccable

My opinion is that understanding overshoot isn't enough. It's what you do with that understanding that matters. On that score, Monte had little to offer.

[Ibon]

Always refusing to state his position by the way was not hiding like a coward behind a rock. That was part of his genius as I saw it. Everyone insisted on him taking a stand on the moral dilemma. The paradox Montequest understood deeply enough not to take the bait. And it was exactly by not stating his position but instead remaining in cold logic that you couldn't dispute the truth of what he was saying. People wanted to see the human in Monte but isn't that part of the moral dilemma around overshoot? Once you insist on framing the discussion of overshoot around the human and humanity you depart from ecological truths that when ignored is what led us to overshoot in the first place. His refusal to take a stand was one of his singular strengths.

[Ludi]

Once you insist on framing the discussion of overshoot around the human and humanity you depart from ecological truths that when ignored is what led us to overshoot in the first place. His refusal to take a stand was one of his singular strengths.

This seems to be saying that we must lose (or dispose of) our humanity in order to address overshoot.

[Ibon]

I never saw him lacking empathy.

Really? Never?

Never is pretty absolute. I'll take that back. When his logic would take you down I never felt his lack of empathy was cruel or intentionally belittling. That is more what I meant to say. He was not able to put empathy in a discussion before the logic of the material. That made him seem almost robotic but that wasn't the case. He actually was brilliant in this regard.

[Ludi]

When his logic would take you down I never felt his lack of empathy was cruel or intentionally belittling. That is more what I meant to say.

Thanks for clarifying.

Callous indifference to other peoples' feelings is, I suppose, an exemplary characteristic of scientists.

[Ibon]

This seems to be saying that we must lose (or dispose of) our humanity in order to address overshoot.

Yes that is part of the paradox. Part of what corrects overshoot is devoid of humanity. Like nature's way of germs and starvation. Remember that all that humanity of 7 billion, all that compassion and love that we share with one another, rests on the grave of all the huge recycling of natural ecosystems over to human ones. How can you hold humanity unconditionally as a wholesome principal without limits when it's unconditional application to solutions has contributed to the havoc on the planet?

Remember the Ishmael point about takers and givers. Here we have a planet of 7 billion takers in their relationship with the biosphere while they are expressing toward one another the esteemed value of humanity and values of love and compassion.

Compassion without the sword of wisdom, as our buddhists will tell us, is not compassion, but rather foolishness.

You could say that Montequest was a sword of wisdom with no compassion. I guess that does have truth as Mos states. But he took that position not in a vacuum but because he saw the fallacy of what I just explained above.

[Ibon]

Thanks for clarifying. Callous indifference to other peoples' feelings is, I suppose, an exemplary characteristic of scientists.

I contain the contradiction of cold logic and scientific inquiry together with compassion toward my fellow humans. It is by its nature a contradiction.

As an analogy. A hunter watches a flock of ducks landing on a pond within the sights of his gun and he shoots and feeds his family that night. The next night at the same spot he watches a sunset and sees the thousands of geese flying by and is moved by a spiritual love of his planet.

This all happened within 24 hours. My question. Which day was he a hypocrite? When he shot the duck or saw god in the sunset?

[Ludi]

Incidentally Monte's logic wasn't all that hot. He was kind of fixated on organ transplants, which have a negligible impact on population.

[Ludi]

I think we might need to increase our empathy, not reduce it, for our fellow humans and for all other living things.

But this is probably too squishy and spiritualish/religiousy for some folks.

<<<generally avoids woo woo except in private.

[Ibon]

Incidentally Monte's logic wasn't all that hot. He was kind of fixated on organ transplants, which have a negligible impact on population.

Negligible impact on population yes but not negligible as a symbol or as the lowest hanging fruit as a place to start.

[mos6507]

Negligible impact on population yes but not negligible as a symbol or as the lowest hanging fruit as a place to start.

Then he should have illustrated where that start would have led to in his ideal dystopia. He never went any further than that, veering into gorilla meat pathogen territory.

[Ibon]

I think we might need to increase our empathy, not reduce it, for our fellow humans and for all other living things.

But this is probably too squishy and spiritualish/religiousy for some folks.

<<<generally avoids woo woo except in private.

Not too squishy. Empathy and compassion however do become expendable when the value of a human life becomes reduced once the stresses of overshoot are severe enough.

We have collectively created an overpopulated planet which will create stresses making empathy more difficult and challenging. I don't buy the response to this that its all the more reason why empathy is important.....because of all the suffering this will cause.

I only have to modify your above statement as follows

I think we might need to increase our empathy, not reduce it, for all other living things. Logically doesn't this make more sense? What is more endangered?

I assure you that Kudzu Ape is less deserving at the moment of empathy. I don't have a lot of empathy for aggressive invasive species. They don't need any help or compassion because they are doing quite well.

There is a way for misanthropic sentiments to be routing for the underdog!

Damn the full moon is beautiful tonight. It just popped above the ridge outside the homestead here and there are fast moving clouds streaming by. I am alone tonight here at Mount Totumas sharing some time with you all in this discourse. A rare moment.

[mos6507]

Everyone insisted on him taking a stand on the moral dilemma.

Life itself insists that he take a stand on the moral dilemma. He's a human, not a Vulcan. If he decides not to share his own feelings here, that's his prerogative. He doesn't have that option to opt out in the real world. He is forced to make Sophie's Choice just as we all are, no matter how bad things get. Inquiring minds would like to know how he'd apply his own kool-aid, as it were. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. He was good at dishing it out, but not taking it, which is why he kept taking off as soon as people pried too deeply into his personal life.

[Ludi]

Then he should have illustrated where that start would have led to in his ideal dystopia. He never went any further than that, veering into gorilla meat pathogen territory.

I'm not convinced a "symbol" is really logical when dealing with actual population issues. Latching onto a symbol which NOBODY except sociopaths can identify with makes little sense. Saying "we have to deny organ transplants to a few tens of thousands of people and unplug your mom (but not Monte's mom)" while we ignore the millions of women who would like family planning services makes little sense.

[Ludi]

I guess what I'm saying is, you will alienate MILLIONS (billions?) of people with the message "we have to deny organ transplants and unplug your mom (but not Monte's mom)" when you could be helping millions (billions?) of people by providing family planning services. Even if the message of the symbol of denying organ transplants is "logical" (which I don't personally accept - I think it makes no sense at all), it is not "logical" to latch onto a message which does nothing but alienate people. It is "worse than useless" to borrow a phrase.

[mos6507]

This all happened within 24 hours. My question. Which day was he a hypocrite? When he shot the duck or saw god in the sunset?

Life today is hardly so poetic...

The reason something like pantheism makes sense is that it helps resolve the contradiction of being a hunter. If everything is sacred, then you pay your respects to the animal you had to kill to keep you alive. The religiosity of the pantheism is in some respect an empathic or guilt response, and a healthy thing, IMHO. Think, saying grace before a meal. The problem is that today we take everything for granted, ala factory farming and microwavable foods. Everything is commodified. Animals are just an inanimate resource that is conjured into existence via the resource extraction at the base of the pyramid, the natural gas fertilizers, the mined phosphorous, etc... and then consumed in a Big Mac casually as, if anything, an inconvenience in the midst of a busy day at the cubicle.

So that's a far cry from the portrait you're painting. People today see God in Lady Gaga's meat-dress.

[Ibon]

which is why he kept taking off as soon as people pried too deeply into his personal life.

I was always more interested in where the hand was pointing to rather than the individual doing the pointing.

Montequest's inability to take a stand does not stand in any sharp contrast to our species position around this moral dilemma. In fact his position was a perfect reflection of humanity's position at large. For after all , this is a paradox. He just had the courage to reveal the paradox. You can't call him out for not taking a stand that humanity at large has been equally incapable of doing?

Remember one of his main points around compassion and empathy? If humans don't address this paradox then by default it will be left to nature which has the compassion of a stone.

We rationalize wonderfully our dilemma and yes we are collectively hypocrites in playing god in the power in how we have modified our planet and biosphere but then hiding behind our empathy when called upon to make necessary and tough choices to set limits.

This moral dilemma can be described by an individual equally helpless to resolve it. Myself for example. I will go to heroic levels to help friends and loved ones. I contribute to the resiliency of Kudzu Ape. For over 20 years I distributed medical optical instruments in Latin America. I brought the first operating microscopes for nuerosurgery in Paraguay many years ago and several other similar examples. On my free weekends when travelling on business in Latin America I went bird watching in habitats that were slowly being compromised by the resiliency of a species I helped make more resilient.

Today I steward 400 acres of wilderness bordering a huge national park. reforesting pastureland. Holding this little piece of the planet intact as a rich biodiversity. I do have more compassion for preserving places like this than I do for preserving my species in overshoot.

Is a misanthropic routing for the underdog not a compassionate act?

I see my species as a menace. I witness the evidence around me.

To my loved ones I am compassionate. To my species as a whole I am full of disdain.

That is a deep paradox.

[Ludi]

So that's a far cry from the portrait you're painting. People today see God in Lady Gaga's meat-dress.

This is significant, and not something we can just ignore or brush off.

How can we (people concerned about overshoot) effectively communicate with other people? According to Narz, my approach has been pretty much 100% ineffective. Has Monte's been any better, with his "logic"?

How can we effectively communicate with "regular folks"?

Can we, even?

[Ludi]

Today I steward 400 acres of wilderness bordering a huge national park.

Whoopty Foul language deleted. . You're some rich guy. I would have put you on ignore years ago if you weren't a moderator. You're so full of yourself I can't stand it.

Plus you hate Homo sapiens.

To my species as a whole I am full of disdain.

Ad hom deleted.