No problem. It’s good to have to explain occasionally stuff I take as fundamental, but which isn’t obvious to everyone.

Cheers,

Chris.

Thank you for explaining those obviously basic facts to me! This conversation (admittedly hijacked by me from the original point) has been very helpful in pointing out the important holes in my knowledge and “reasoning” (though it doesn’t change my conclusions re. sustainability, just gives me more homework).

Regarding species, I meant what I said as, as you say, “accidental result” rather than “cause”. Obviously species don’t convene meetings to debate sustainability etc.

I guess that my my “beliefs” on these topics are ultimately based on highly subjective intuition and that I am trying to reconcile this with reason. Perhaps the answer to the conundrum presented by Hume lies in somehow connecting intuition with reason and searching for the solution with reason alone isn’t possible.

As for your job I would like to say that you are very good at it, but that would assume that my reasoning provided some challenge which perhaps it does not ….. ;-)

Thanks again!

There’s far too much in your comment for me to deal with it all effectively here. But a couple of quick points.

You’re using the word “logic” where you probably mean “rationality.” Logic is about which claims follow from which other claims. (If A then B; A, therefore B, etc.) It’s only as Western as mathematics is. The notation and concepts originated in the West (with Aristotle) but they aren’t particularly Western beyond that. And no, it cannot prove absurdities to be true.
Rationality, on the other hand, is (very roughly) a systematic approach to decision-making or the evaluation of decisions. Most importantly, it’s typically seen as being about deciding what methods are suitable to obtaining what objectives. Here’s where you might find what you call absurdity: standard undestandings of rationality imply that ultimate goals cannot be rationally evaluated. Thus Hume wrote, “‘Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger” (and by “reason” he meant “rationality.”) You might well find that absurd (i.e., it might take you aback), but so far no one has been able to find any basis for rational evaluation of ultimate goals — and not for lack of trying.

The notion of species preservation you mention is, unfortunately, outdated science. Genes drive animals to reproduce & thus spread those same genes. The continuation of species is an accidental result.

As for your final point, I’ll only say this: my job is to produce good arguments and tear down bad ones. So I’m not very concerned with establishing the factual basis for anything — though I’m quite curious to discover *whether* there is a factual basis for various conclusions.

Chris.