Quote:
Originally Posted by Clippo
Tito wrote:-
Outdated possibly yes –but criticism of her views were expressed while she was alive.
&
You are falsely assuming that ‘logical philosophy’ is immutably correct.
As for :-
What a load of W & P. Full of theistic epistemology of which the logical foundation has been shown to be highly flawed.
I prefer a different philosophical prospective :-
Humanity evolved the ability to use tools, including fire, and which enabled it to survive in ecological niches where almost physiologically identical species (e.g. other great apes), could not. A classic example of adaptive evolution. However, as with all newly evolved species, they can become dependent on the factor(s) which gave them that evolutionary advantage in the first place. Particularly so if the species doesn’t evolve further to become independent of those initial factors i.e. stagnate & die. When that dependency is discovered to be threatening to the species survival in any way, (for example by lack of availability, or 'overgrazing' aka over use of resources), the probable outcome is distinctly un-advantageous in evolutionary terms. Cf the Dodo effect.
So it is with fire in humanity’s case. It has been discovered that the over-use of fire now threatens the survival of the species – so therefore humanity, having the intelligence to understand all of the implications of using tools (cf, spears / guns / nuclear rockets) – needs now to ‘adapt’ (further), to survive.
Humanity and evolutionary successors will always be dependent on additional 'energy' sources, but we supposedly have the intelligence to realise that (well some of us have).
|
Indeed, but we never go backwards. Ayn Rand didn't mind choosing environmentally friendly products, and other such minimum inconveniences.
She wrote once about how the environmentalists don't like people purchasing green products, because it is still a purchase.
The overuse of resources is a nonsensical idea. They can be used just as much as their owner chooses, who is to say otherwise?