1.5 Culture score, regression to mean, equilibrium. Science, culture and philosophy, Gütsel Online, OWL live

1.5 Culture score, regression to mean, equilibrium. Science, culture and philosophy

It’s absurd. (Not only) the “extinction rebellion” in their arguments refers to the scholars who are paid and commissioned by those who testify in favor of those who are highly critical of them.

Political agreement on a “1.5 degree goal” is nonsense.

Assuming that without any human influence the climate would be static is also sheer nonsense. This is a clear.

We do not protect nature and the climate. This is a silly assumption. We can only protect ourselves (if we want to).

We should do as little damage as possible to the environment, but we don’t. Because it is difficult, if not impossible. The very policy that decides the “targets” and said committees have said that the scientists and their evoked – and of course people like Extinction Rebellion – are absolutely right – the opposite of what they claim. He acts exclusively in his own interest, since this interest is created primarily in the framework of its own impetus, but is also directed. It’s not conspiratorial, it’s human nature (which is actually a self-contradictory term).

But nature also knows excess, but then it regulates itself, and this phenomenon is called regression to the mean. Always lean towards balance. The man takes advantage of that. But at the same time he works against it and does not accept this principle out of stupidity, narrow-mindedness and laziness.

That there is progress in nature is an illusion. Stephen Jay Gould has shown this admirably. The fact that there is a dynamic is only due to the (statistical) phenomenon of “probability clustering” with respect to the “left wall”. But there is also the “right wall”.

See also  Species protection: exotic bats are back

It may come as a surprise, but the dominant species on Earth since the beginning of life have been the protozoa. They have been around for a long time, have the largest number of species, the largest number of individuals, and the largest biomass. But they also tend to be ruthless homeostasis. In this respect, blind naturalism is not something one would want.

Everything has an end in itself. But nature also knows the purpose, culture in the broad sense seeks to go beyond the goal. This has already been criticized by Kant, who one likes to point out, but in the end he ignores and spoils his statements. Especially in ignorance, misunderstanding and misunderstanding of classical philosophy.

Only (real) art itself is creative, progressive, and has an end in itself. Unfortunately, most artists themselves do not. “Science is the mind of the world, and art its soul,” Maxim Gorky. And philosophy dares to try to discover the meaning of it all.

The assumption that something could be changed by attracting attention was often frustrating, as seen from a look at history. It is unfortunate that crocodile tears shed after the martyrs. But whoever does that should be ashamed. Desire usually follows necessity. This usually results from its own complex dynamic. adapt. The drama begins with the assumption that you don’t have to conform, that everything else and everyone else has to conform. When you want to be more than you are. Note: happiness wants what is there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.