I wanted to pose a question here: does greed influence an individual's downfall and can that scale proportionally? (example: One person plus a measure of greed equals their downfall. two people plus a measure of greed equals double consequence; or a billion people plus a measure of greed equals catastrophe)
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Greed and the world's fate (interactive question)
- Thread starter DBTC CATP
- Start date
I know many people who are very greedy and don’t experience any kind of downfall, except maybe that they are a bit obsessed with having, I therefore don’t think that it’s a causal relationship especially on the personal scale. I do think there is a correlation with using and taking more than one needs and the subsequent impact on our earth. This I definitely would describe as a downfall and a great loss to humanity, to really understand how these things are connected and create an understanding it should be viewed as a complex system where a great number of different parameters are involved.
Based on Aristoteles book of Nicomachean Ethics he writes about virtues.
A virtue is the middle disposition of two extreme dispositions.
This dispositions act as categories and can be viewed as a scale.
The lower part of the scale is the category/disposition "lack".
The middle or balanced one is the virtue.
The high one is "excess".
Based on aristoteles not only lack but also excess can be harmful.
That means that someone has to choose the virtuel between two affects.
An affects populates the categorical table.
In your example lack would represent greed.
Excess would represent waste.
The middle one or the virtue in this case would be generosity.
This can be used with any affects.
One has to find two extremes of an affect and then conclude the virtue from it.
But this virtues are very context dependent.
Being generous means something else for someone poor compared to someone rich.
If I think about it, then it makes sort of sense for lots of scenarious.
As @Varallo already pointed out, being greedy can have negative aspects on our environment.
But being wasteful as well.
This was a good opportunity to summerise what a learned.
A virtue is the middle disposition of two extreme dispositions.
This dispositions act as categories and can be viewed as a scale.
The lower part of the scale is the category/disposition "lack".
The middle or balanced one is the virtue.
The high one is "excess".
Based on aristoteles not only lack but also excess can be harmful.
That means that someone has to choose the virtuel between two affects.
An affects populates the categorical table.
In your example lack would represent greed.
Excess would represent waste.
The middle one or the virtue in this case would be generosity.
This can be used with any affects.
One has to find two extremes of an affect and then conclude the virtue from it.
But this virtues are very context dependent.
Being generous means something else for someone poor compared to someone rich.
If I think about it, then it makes sort of sense for lots of scenarious.
As @Varallo already pointed out, being greedy can have negative aspects on our environment.
But being wasteful as well.
This was a good opportunity to summerise what a learned.
This is the point. To put a positive spin on it, environmental pressures could be interpreted as an evolutionary driving force. It's a question of how small the eye of the needle is going to get.
Maybe it is also a matter if we are talking about a single action or when an action is performed?
A single action should not harm, I think.
But I also think that actions form a being.
No matter which concept one uses, if it is kants imperative, aristoteles virtues, utilitarism or any other construct, the actions performed affect ones character.
And a being affects other beings as well, creating sort of a spiral.
But this does not have to imply only negatuve aspects.
The same works with good actions I think.
What I am unsure about:
What when the whole world would do a single action at the same time?
Would that affect the environment in a more significant way?
A single action should not harm, I think.
But I also think that actions form a being.
No matter which concept one uses, if it is kants imperative, aristoteles virtues, utilitarism or any other construct, the actions performed affect ones character.
And a being affects other beings as well, creating sort of a spiral.
But this does not have to imply only negatuve aspects.
The same works with good actions I think.
What I am unsure about:
What when the whole world would do a single action at the same time?
Would that affect the environment in a more significant way?
I agree that with eco systems one action is mitigated by the system because there’s an balance between all elements, this balance can be seen as an force, (the force of nature) the problem is that this balance is now being threatened by the relentless pressure of humans, and at such an extreme rate that the system can’t recover to the “normal” state. This inevitably leads to an new balance, the problem is that it’s not clear if humans are going to be an actor in that new system. In a way that could be seen as an evolution, the scary thing is that it would be chaos in between the old and new system.
So, no, no one single action can’t solve this since it’s an complex system that is constantly evolving by itself through itself, to solve this you would need many small things that interact in a positive way towards stability of the system
So, no, no one single action can’t solve this since it’s an complex system that is constantly evolving by itself through itself, to solve this you would need many small things that interact in a positive way towards stability of the system
I ask myself if this is this an ethical, political or an economical question.
It is very interesting that this point can bew viewed from so many different persepctives.
The analogy with normality and a timeframe or multiple action form a new baselane acting as normality is interesting.
But that would also imply that there is neither a downfall nor its opposite?
It is very interesting that this point can bew viewed from so many different persepctives.
The analogy with normality and a timeframe or multiple action form a new baselane acting as normality is interesting.
But that would also imply that there is neither a downfall nor its opposite?
Well it’s all about perspective, I mean the world will be there long after the last human, so if you take that perspective it’s nothing but an blip, but from my perspective it’s very much important to not just stop existing or being part of an future that involves the suffering of large parts of the human population. So I guess it’s a downfall for some of systems actor’s 
.
.
OK, so I was talking (at home here in Transform Towers a few days ago) about a very specific example, and I wonder if it expresses something more general:
By replacing ozone-destroying CFC refrigerants with their modern fluorohydrocarbon [HFC] alternatives, we've inadvertently added a virtually indestructible greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in the form of the HFC breakdown product, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). So, in the effort to make lots of little cold boxes, we've inadvertently cooked the planet that little bit more. A sad irony, reminiscent of Le Chatelier (with a pinch of Lavoisier, perhaps...) (And maybe if mirror bacteria are going to continue to be developed, they should be made with trifluoroacetate as an obligate nutrient?)
By replacing ozone-destroying CFC refrigerants with their modern fluorohydrocarbon [HFC] alternatives, we've inadvertently added a virtually indestructible greenhouse gas to the atmosphere in the form of the HFC breakdown product, trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). So, in the effort to make lots of little cold boxes, we've inadvertently cooked the planet that little bit more. A sad irony, reminiscent of Le Chatelier (with a pinch of Lavoisier, perhaps...) (And maybe if mirror bacteria are going to continue to be developed, they should be made with trifluoroacetate as an obligate nutrient?)
Power attracts the corruptible. Greed attracts the fearful and those who cannot imagine that "this is enough." And yes, these things are currently loose without limits in the world today.
Koyaanisqatsi
Similar threads
