Give up AC to save future generations?

[coberst]

Give up AC to save future generations?

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny? I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.

I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).

 

[Eudaimonist]

I claim that a compelling sense of stewardship must come through a comprehension of the science of morality (yet to be developed).

And how can scientific observations and methods, in principle, validate the ethical claim that "each human generation... must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received"? The only thing that any of us must do is die.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[coberst]

And how can scientific observations and methods, in principle, validate the ethical claim that "each human generation... must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received"? The only thing that any of us must do is die.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Science provides us with the best foundation for understanding a domain of knowledge. Our instinct is to survive and to die later.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Science provides us with the best foundation for understanding a domain of knowledge.

You say this like a mantra. Science is great for understanding how entities change and interact, but it does not provide any foundation for discovering and justifying oughts.

Our instinct is to survive and to die later.

So? Why should we live according to instinct?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Rauffenburg]

You say this like a mantra. Science is great for understanding how entities change and interact, but it does not provide any foundation for discovering and justifying oughts.

True. But I still think that science has a whole lot to say in justifying oughts - indirectly. It shows us which "oughts" are realistic and which are not given that what is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

True. But I still think that science has a whole lot to say in justifying oughts - indirectly. It shows us which "oughts" are realistic and which are not given that what is.

True, though science cannot even define the limits of what is "realistic" enough to still be acceptable and appropriate as an ought.

My point has so far only been that science cannot deal with oughts singlehandedly. It can at best act only as a servant of philosophy.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[coberst]

Moral instinct is an emotion.

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling.

What are the emotions? The primary emotions are happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. The secondary or social emotions are such things as pride, jealousy, embarrassment, and guilt. Damasio considers the background emotions are well-being or malaise, and calm or tension. The label of emotion has also been attached to drives and motivations and to states of pain and pleasure.

Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine, testifies in his book “The Feelings of What Happens” that the biological process of feelings begins with a ‘state of emotion’, which can be triggered unconsciously and is followed by ‘a state of feeling’, which can be presented nonconsciously; this nonconscious state can then become ‘a state of feeling made conscious’.

”Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”

The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“Emotions are inseparable from the idea of reward and punishment, pleasure or pain, of approach or withdrawal, of personal advantage or disadvantage. Inevitably, emotions are inseparable from the idea of good and evil.”

Emotions result from stimulation of the senses from outside the body sources and also from stimulations from remembered situations. Evolution has provided us with emotional responses from certain types of inducers put these innate responses are often modified by our culture.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Human emotion and feeling pivot on consciousness; this fact has not been generally recognized prior to Damasio’s research. Emotion has probably evolved long before consciousness and surfaces in many of us when caused by inducers we often do not recognize consciously.

The powerful contrast between emotion and feeling is used by the author in his search for a comprehension of consciousness. It is a neurological fact, states the author, that when consciousness is suspended then emotion is likewise usually suspended. This observed human characteristic led Damasio to suspect that even though emotion and consciousness are different phenomenon that there must be an important connection between the two.

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Empirical evidence indicates that we need not be conscious of emotional inducers nor can we control emotions willfully. We can, however, control the entertainment of an emotional inducer even though we cannot control the emotion induced.

I was raised as a Catholic and taught by the nuns that “impure thoughts” were a sin only if we “entertained” bad thoughts after an inducer caused an emotion that we felt, i.e. God would not punish us for the first impure thought but He would punish us for dwelling upon the impure thought. If that is not sufficient verification of the theory derived from Damasio’s empirical evidence, what is?

In a typical emotion, parts of the brain sends forth messages to other parts of the body, some of these messages travel via the blood stream and some via the body’s nerve system. These neural and chemical messages results in a global change in the organism. The brain itself is just as radically changed. But, before the brain becomes conscious of this matter, before the emotion becomes known, two additional steps must occur. The first is feeling, i.e. an imaging of the bodily changes, followed by a ‘core consciousness’ to the entire set of phenomena. “Knowing an emotion—feeling a feeling—only occurs at this point.”

Quotes from “The Feelings of What Happens” by Antonio Damasio

 

[tcampen]

To cut to the point...freon is a contained gas within AC units. Only if the freon escapes the AC is it exposed to the atmosphere. Thus, rather than not using the AC, keep it well maintained, and you should have nothing to worry about.

Sorry if this spoils the philosophical argument.

 

[JonF]

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive?

I hope Americans would realize that false dilemma are false.

 

[bob135]

Would it be possible to cause the American people to reject completely the use of air-conditioning so that generations five times removed could survive? Is it possible to create in a person a rational response strong enough to overcome the culturally developed nature of greed and selfishness? The motivation force must be instinctually based, i.e. based upon moral instinct honed through reason in the form of a science of morality.

Not using AC & other programs of resource conservation don't make a lot of sense if you use any medium-sized discount rate. Discounting at 5%, $100 of enjoyment 125 years from now (5 generations) is worth 22 cents today. If it costs more than a quarter to save someone 125 years from now.

If you give up more than 22 cents today to save $100 in 125 years, you are getting more for less. People (who are presumably greedy) borrow money to use *themselves* at rates of 5%, the best you can expect of them (if they treated others equally) would be to discount the future gains of others at 5% as well.

Consequently, a project that saves $100 million in the 125 years probably isn't worth investing more than $220,000 in today.

Additionally, it is likely that people in the future will be much better off than people are today, so how does it make sense for us to suffer today (not have AC, etc) so we can help people who will be far wealthier than us (due to the technologies we have developed, etc)?

 

[Sphinx777]

An air conditioner is an appliance, system, or mechanism designed to extract heat from an area via a refrigeration cycle. In construction, a complete system of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning is referred to as "HVAC." Its purpose, in a building or an automobile, is to provide comfort during either hot or cold weather.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

To cut to the point...freon is a contained gas within AC units. Only if the freon escapes the AC is it exposed to the atmosphere. Thus, rather than not using the AC, keep it well maintained, and you should have nothing to worry about.

Sorry if this spoils the philosophical argument.

I thought that freon was no longer used in A/C?

 

[Sphinx777]

I thought that freon was no longer used in A/C?

Freon is DuPont's trade name for its odorless, colorless, nonflammable, and noncorrosive chlorofluorocarbon and hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigerants, which are used in air conditioning, refrigeration and some automatic fire-fighting systems. It is one of a class of chemicals called Haloalkanes; Freon and similar refrigerants have been controversial due to environmental and safety concerns. Inhalation of relatively low concentrations of Freon is unlikely to cause major health issues, but higher concentrations can displace enough oxygen to cause asphyxiation.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I thought that freon was no longer used in A/C?

That is correct, in the US anyway, as of the late 1980s. I believe Freons can still be used in some older units by way of grandfather clause. I know nothing of their regulation outside the US, however.

 

[~Wisdom Seeker~]

That is correct, in the US anyway, as of the late 1980s. I believe Freons can still be used in some older units by way of grandfather clause. I know nothing of their regulation outside the US, however.

Thanks. I thought so.

 

[2ndRateMind]

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

I agree this sentiment wholeheartedly. Indeed, where it is possible to improve the legacy, (perhaps by improving soil fertility, or by extending the life of resources by recycling) I do not think such opportunities should be missed.

However, this attitude, this disposition, is not a scientific contention; it is a moral one. It cannot be proven to be good by observation, only realised to be good by means of informed intuition.

Best wishes, 2ndRateMind

 

[jayem]

There are other options for heating and cooling. Geothermal systems use a water-based refrigerant. Free of halogenated compounds.

A/C is an economic necessity. It's responsible for the development and growth of the Sun Belt. Places like Las Vegas, or Phoenix, or Houston would have only a fraction of their populations and business bases without A/C. Not to mention that they'd be unliveable in the summer.