Now Reading
“From meat to digital, it is impossible to make environmental change without understanding the extent of pollution we are causing.”

“From meat to digital, it is impossible to make environmental change without understanding the extent of pollution we are causing.”

“The data itself means nothing if no one can interpret it. Science produces tons of data, but the interpreters of the data are human.” He has no doubts Leonardo Cafu: Philosopher, Thinker, and AuthorWe asked him to choose from several books that dealt with sustainability and the environment. There are still philosophers available Likewise at a time when the password, from Greta to the bottom, in the environmental field, but also in the health sector is “we must trust the science”.

It seems that scientists are the only ones who have the right and ability to direct collective behavior. Technicians will be our salvation as individuals and as an entire race. What role does the philosopher play in these matters, and what can he do to help?

This view is totally opposed by me. In reality, the general change of events is not in the hands science but in the hands science allied with humanities. In the environmental question, philosophers are the interpreters of statements, especially those who specialize on moral, political, and general questions. In sociology, the fact that we know how many processes are more or less polluting or where the emissions come from doesn’t tell us anything about what it means to explain the changes.

We must agree on what philosophy is. If philosophy says what you think, then no. But there are flower philosophers that emphasize the importance of normative ethics and moral philosophy. They must be able to see the science that gives us the numbers. Numbers are just numbers. It’s the pictures we have of them that make it interesting.

Italian Technology Prize 2031: A letter to the future philosopher Leonardo Cavo concerning mistakes to avoid

He wrote a letter to the future titled The Year In My Year, The Year To Come. He wrote, among other things, “I would like a year without emission, we will have a thousand of tons of carbon dioxide.”2 Released. It discusses the issue of distance between what we know and what we actually do. What is 2021’s potential and what are the prospects for next year?

I bring with my one hand the urgent possibility of putting climate problems on the agenda. On the other, however, it is difficult to communicate this with the conceptual urgency that is required. It is difficult to communicate the complexity of the question and its interrelationships. The fact that even seemingly unrelated phenomena like an epidemic appear to be coming from nowhere comes from our poor relationship to other animals and our inability shrink infrastructure.

I feel a bit of grief because it seems like we are still discussing clear evidence, such if plastic should be taxed or the production polluting substances by non-environmental businesses. I think that many of the results of the last climate conference have been very disappointing, and on the other hand, everything we need to do to change the indicators of the health of the planet in relation to our coexistence is clear, from the change in our food systems towards a plant-based diet, at the end of fossil fuel production, to A radical change in our ability to move through aircraft…

If there is a positive urgency today then it is obvious that nobody is doing anything if they are not within a climate framework. On the other hand, there is still much rhetoric and very little dealing the reality that the environment is very radical and revolutionary thinking. We must Substantially Change 100% of our actions and not just act in general Green wash.

For 2022, I hope philosophical and scientific thinking in ecology will be taken more seriously. However, normative thinking will be less taken into consideration. This is because environmental transformation is impossible. Digital transformation, for instance, is one of our most polluting tools, but very little is being said about it. Digital, meat, and other causes are the real and major causes of climate change. We speak a lot. We need to improve.”

He has a daughter. What do you envision the world looking like when you reach thirty? What do your dreams are for her?

“My daughter is about two years old and I won’t put my hands on fire until the world in thirty years looks like we think. We’ve been given 20 years to reverse course, but we have metadata that conflict, in other words, we know what to do but we also know what to do, And the two are contradictory. And these are not “easy” contradictions, but precisely standard contradictions again. What you have to do is what I do, like we know we should administer a treatment to the patient but we don’t do it to him, on the contrary we give him the opposite treatment.

My daughter, as all children, is at a crossroads. This system, which we thought should collapse, must be destroyed as soon as possible. Although it is contradictory as well as radical, the philosopher is neither a scientist nor a politician and sometimes has the luxury to know the truth.

He has written a number of books about ecology and environmental issues. The last book, Four Huts, was his most recent.It is about simplicity and about living a simpler lifestyle. This is contrary to the model being offered to us every day. Given that not everyone can afford to go back to the hut, what could be the simplicity of “sustainable”, both in the ecological sense and in the sense of the “potential” of our customs and culture?

“The hut is clearly a metaphor, even if the ones I talk about in the book already exist. It is a metaphor for the idea that the future will not be as it seems. The less is the betterWe are used to architectural speculation. However, the removal of these items will be more important that the filling. We will be happier and wealthier if we can live without them and not how many we have. Look at the cost of materials and the price of a packet paper. Then consider how to increase the raw materials costs. This is the reason why the system has been crumbling for so long.

“Everything is already here. Simplicity is simplifying philosophy. It is about reducing the amount and what we really need. Even secondary needs. I am not only referring to basic necessities. A culture that can teach in all aspects will be in complete agreement and support for technological progress. That technological progress is a reality. These two things are interconnected, but the idea that accumulation is dead is not possible. This is what we have seen with To shareAfter private ownership declined in the 1960s, communal and joint ownership was established. For the environment to thrive, simplicity is the best paradigm. Since today ecology means not only respect for the environment, ecology also means having fewer things, a limited list of essential goods, and being able to survive in one’s environment without constantly moving around, it is a research program.

For 2022, philosopher reading

Graham PriestTo learn to think.

View Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.