Morality or biology?

[partinobodycular]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

 

[Moral Orel]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

Do you have some evidence to link them in a causal relationship?

If so, then aren't conservatives actually contributing to the problem through the lack of environmental regulation, while at the same time condemning the consequences as just a lack of morality? Are they actually blaming the victim when it's really themselves who are the problem?

There's no good reason to even address your second paragraph of questions until you establish that the first paragraph of questions can be answered in the affirmative.

 

[Trusting in Him]

I am a diabetic and how you become a diabetic is kind of complicated. Some people eat and drink all the wrong things and never become diabetics while others eat and drink normally and take exercise, but still become diabetics. If you have a logical and provable explaination why people become diabetics, lets hear it.

If there a way to avoid this, a lot of us would like to know how to do this. Much of the pre-processed food we eat contains quite a lot of high fructose corn syrup, which is proven to cause diabetese in many people, but only in certain people, so what determines the difference? Please explain why this is, I for one would really like to know!

 

[Unqualified]

Our hope is in Christ and the rapture. They are also trying to fix these things by making peoples environments right. Giving them money, diversifying the environment for each person each group the world cannot handle it thus unrest. Prepare your hearts for the Lords coming.

 

[durangodawood]

Here's whats vile: carrying on piling up suffering for future people because we're so sure we're the ones gonna get raptured outa here and leave this mess behind.

In the past other people thought the same thing. But now theyre dead and we inherited their mess. I heard Ronald Reagans Sec of Interior say this, paraphrased now, on Christian radio: end times are near, fretting over a clean place to live is futile. Well hes gone. But we're here. Vile.

 

[partinobodycular]

Do you have some evidence to link them in a causal relationship?

And therein lies the problem. It's like trying to prove a connection between fossil fuels and climate change, or the fossil record and evolution, there's always plausible deniability. We can always just assume that this generation is fatter simply because they're lazier. It's not "our" fault, it's their fault.

But it would be naive to think that we can contaminate our environment with chemicals and suffer no ill effects for it. Human biology is a complex thing, as is our relationship with our environment, so to ask for a direct causal relationship between the two before even considering that the problems may be related is to be either willfully ignorant or indifferent.

There's no good reason to even address your second paragraph of questions until you establish that the first paragraph of questions can be answered in the affirmative.

I assume that you also believe that there's no reason to address the human contribution to global warming until we can first prove a direct causal connection. I'm not sure, is that willful ignorance or indifference?

 

[partinobodycular]

I am a diabetic and how you become a diabetic is kind of complicated. Some people eat and drink all the wrong things and never become diabetics while others eat and drink normally and take exercise, but still become diabetics. If you have a logical and provable explaination why people become diabetics, lets hear it.

Having had both a brother and sister who developed Type 1 diabetes at the age of 8, and having cared for the latter for the last fifteen years of her life, I do have some experience with the subject. Some portion of the blame for diabetes is obviously genetic, some environmental, and some lifestyle, but when one encounters a rapid increase in occurrence within one or two generations then there's likely to be an environmental component.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment? For generations now we've polluted the air, the water, and the food, is what we're experiencing now just a consequence of that neglect?

I think you'd have to be able to draw some sort of line from point A to point B.
(for instance: if one said, "global warming has destroyed certain farmland, made travel difficult for certain people, and as a result... left them with only unhealthy food options", that's at least an indirect line worth discussing, but the burden of proof would still be high to make that case)

You're also lumping in some things that are voluntary vs. involuntary, as well as things that are nature vs. environment. And there are some differences even among things that fall into those categorizations.

For instance, you've listed things like "LGBTQ and OCD", those things wouldn't belong in the same category (nor would the former even be a problem that would disrupt someone's life apart from the kind of treatment they get from other people...as where, with OCD, it's a debilitating psychological condition for some.

And neither belong the in the same category as obesity, which is overwhelmingly behavior driven...I'm sure people with OCD would be thrilled if they could solve their problem by replacing pizza & burgers with more sensible food choices.

 

[Moral Orel]

And therein lies the problem. It's like trying to prove a connection between fossil fuels and climate change, or the fossil record and evolution, there's always plausible deniability.

There is no plausible deniability for those things.

But it would be naive to think that we can contaminate our environment with chemicals and suffer no ill effects for it.

Of course there is. Which things though?

Human biology is a complex thing, as is our relationship with our environment, so to ask for a direct causal relationship between the two before even considering that the problems may be related...

Asking for evidence for a causal relationship is considering that the problems may be related.

I assume that you also believe that there's no reason to address the human contribution to global warming until we can first prove a direct causal connection.

We did.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Having had both a brother and sister who developed Type 1 diabetes at the age of 8, and having cared for the latter for the last fifteen years of her life, I do have some experience with the subject. Some portion of the blame for diabetes is obviously genetic, some environmental, and some lifestyle, but when one encounters a rapid increase in occurrence within one or two generations then there's likely to be an environmental component.

Perhaps, but maybe diet and bad lifestyle. We certainly have our suspicians.

 

[o_mlly]

How many of today's social problems can be tied to environmental issues? Are things like obesity, diabetes, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD and other psychological problems actually caused by our polluting of the environment?

Obesity, social dysphoria, LGBTQ, OCD? Not likely. Diabetes? Possibly.

It seems that the assumed premise is that free will does not exist. "The environment made me do it!"
Read "The Book of Job". His "environment" collapsed around him but he did not.

P. S. "Using" is not necessarily "polluting".

 

[durangodawood]

There is no plausible deniability for those things....

People find wrong stuff plausible all the time tho.

 

[Desk trauma]

Our hope is in Christ and the rapture. They are also trying to fix these things by making peoples environments right. Giving them money, diversifying the environment for each person each group the world cannot handle it thus unrest. Prepare your hearts for the Lords coming.

Who’s they?

 

[Moral Orel]

People find wrong stuff plausible all the time tho.

Children find it plausible that Santa delivers presents all over the world in a single night. That don't make it plausible.

 

[durangodawood]

Children find it plausible that Santa delivers presents all over the world in a single night. That don't make it plausible.

Not to adults. But yes Santa Claus and his activities actually is plausible to children of a certain age.

The stuff we were discussing is plausible (or plausibly false) to a lot of adults.

 

[Moral Orel]

Not to adults. But yes Santa Claus and his activities actually is plausible to children of a certain age.

The stuff we were discussing is plausible (or plausibly false) to a lot of adults.

There is no such thing as "plausible to". There is plausible, and there is not plausible. Some folk think things are plausible and they are wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

There is no such thing as "plausible to". There is plausible, and there is not plausible. Some folk think things are plausible and they are wrong.

What I get when I look it up plausible is:
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"

So its precisely about state of mind - what "seems" right, and relative to each individual. If enough people find something plausible, then its generally plausible.

 

[Ken-1122]

There is no such thing as "plausible to". There is plausible, and there is not plausible. Some folk think things are plausible and they are wrong.

No, for something to be plausible, it means it is believable; that makes it completely subjective. There are countless things some people find believable (plausible), that others do not.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All of those things to some degree or another contribute to many of the things you listed. Take obesity for instance. The abundance of cheap and easy food, which is also tasty and addicting will naturally lead to obesity in a population not trained to control itself.

LGBTQ and acceptance thereof has less to do with the environment and more of a socially permissive morality which removes sexual taboos. Sex being divorced from procreation naturally leads to more decadence.

 

[Moral Orel]

What I get when I look it up plausible is:
(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"

So its precisely about state of mind - what "seems" right, and relative to each individual. If enough people find something plausible, then its generally plausible.

It has nothing to do with state of mind. It isn't about how it seems to a subject or the definition would have stated that. The "seems" is only there to account for what information is available. There is no mention of a subject, or "seems to". You added all that "what 'seems' right, and relative to each individual". That is not in the definition.

It's about probability and reasonableness. Yes, many people believe implausible and unreasonable things. That does not make terms like "plausible" subjective. Probability and reason are not subjective.

A statement is plausible or it is not plausible.

No, for something to be plausible, it means it is believable; that makes it completely subjective. There are countless things some people find believable (plausible), that others do not.

Wrong. Plausibility is about probability and reasonableness. There are countless implausible and unreasonable things that people believe. Probability and reason are not subjective.

To both of you. We are discussing the phrase "plausible deniability" which was coined to describe officials who were made intentionally ignorant of certain facts. Their denial is plausible because there is a reason that they do not know those facts. Their denial isn't made plausible if they are a good liar and successfully convince folk that they don't know certain facts. Plausible is not a subjective term.