Yabby: << Science today is extremely specialised. Just because you passed anthropology CJ, does not mean that you know anything about neuroscience. >>

Science is indeed increasingly specialised, which is why holistic disciolines like anthropology are still as relevant as ever. Just because you know a bit about neuroscience and primatology doesn't mean that you know anything much about humans as a species - nor indeed about anthropology or the way that universities work.

Neuroscience has indeed gone ahead in leaps and bounds, but all it really tells us is the intricate detail of the biochemical mechanics of human behaviour that we already knew about, or at least suspected. It doesn't tell us anything much about the complexities of human thought, culture and society.

Further, you make far too many assumptions about me. I took my first degree in Science (double major in psychology and mathematics) in the 1980s as a mature age student at a university that was heavily oriented towards biological behaviourism. I later studied anthropology at undergraduate and postgraduate levels at another university, precisely because I was dissatisfied with the superficiality of human understanding afforded by biological psychology (i.e. 'neuroscience').

Your dogmatic assertion of biological determinism displays the classic weakness of the autodidact - i.e. a lack of theoretical, empirical and cross-disciplinary context.

Ludwig, what you don't acknowledge is that we are the only species that is capable of imagining our own demise and of planning collectively to avoid it. The only hope we have is to use our recorded experience and superior intelligence to devise ways of living collectively that are sustainable in the long term. The alternative is Yabby's nihilism or your ultimately unsustainable 'lifeboat' mentality.

I think the three main strands of debate on this topic are quite legitimate in their own right.

Overall, the upshot of CJ's view is that man has the cognitive ability to work out how to progress to a better future, Ludwig's is that society is on the wrong track and we need to permanently change direction for the better, and Yabby's is that what we do is influenced by our surroundings. Their views represent the future, present and past respectively.

Taken together, they perfectly complement each other whilst holding the door open for a potential solution but still recognising the current-day reality. Surely, there's enough hints in these arguments for society, as a collective, to take the next step and solve the problems raised?

RobP
Unfortunately they are all ultimately mutually exclusive.
The source of our problem i.e. AGW (more reasonably described as Anthropomorphic Climate Change) can only be realistically by the holistic multi discipline stance.

Most of the "climate skeptics" tend to be so because they argue in either the context of their own narrow discipline perspective or fixate on the wholey overly simplistic attack of "explain the mechanism in minute accurate detail" or it disproves the whole multidisciplinary conclusion.

Therefore it seems logical to me that any solution must be likewise multidisciplinary. In that context CJ is correct and the other two approaches will ultimately found to be inadequate/unsustainable.

In less eloquent/cogent prose, I have been advocating a similar view all along thanks CJ.

“…what you don't acknowledge is that we are the only species that is capable of imagining our own demise and of planning collectively to avoid it.”

CJ, there is no need to acknowledge the bleedingly obvious!

“The alternative is … your ultimately unsustainable 'lifeboat' mentality.”

You’ve lost me there!

So I take it then that you agree that the broadening of the role of women in our society since about the 50s has not helped at all when it comes to securing a healthy future, despite the large resultant reduction in the birthrate that it triggered?

“…the other two approaches will ultimately found to be inadequate/unsustainable.”

Examinator, could you please explain why you think this about my approach to sustainability issues.

* and Yabby's is that what we do is influenced by our surroundings*

RobP, my view is that we are the product of genes interacting with
environment, both matter and that we are not above the laws of nature.

Edward de Bono is correct, we've seen on OLO just how effective
so called "rational debate" is, in convincing Runner, Philo, and
others of anything at all! The human brain simply does not work,
as Examinator, CJ and others, think it does. Neuroscience shows that.

As CJ admits, when he did not like what his university was teaching,
he changed universities. In other words, he is simply following
his own political and social agenda and any information which might
clash with those views, is discarded.

*It doesn't tell us anything much about the complexities of human thought, culture and society.*

It tells us how the human brain functions and trying to understand
people, without understanding brains, is basically guessing, hoping
and peeing in the breeze!

Culture and society are but veneer thin. Note that it only took
one storm in New Orleans, for the laws of the jungle to move in.
That is only one example of many. Ignore nature at your peril.

It is exactly because people think that we are above the laws of
nature, that we are heading for disaster.