Human Paradox

The human paradox might correctly be said to be: Humans are the one member of the animal kingdom wherein many members consider themselves to be also a member of a supernatural kingdom.

I define a paradox here to mean a common sense view of reality that is a logical contradiction, which presents a problem that cannot be solved but only ameliorated in some way through the process of our comprehending its nature.

Because most, but not all, humans are possessed by this paradoxical world view we pay a heavy price due to our constant effort to preserve this “fantastic ambition” rather than understanding its source and making corrections accordingly.

As a member of the animal kingdom we consume to live. We have an appetite and in feeding that appetite we often kill and consume other animals. We feel good after we consume and we will do whatever is necessary to continue to consume and to live. We have an absolute attraction to Eros, i.e. we have a consuming desire to do what is necessary to preserve our life.

Good is that which promotes our life and evil is that which threatens our life.

Eros drives us to a desire to live forever. Our brain has developed to the point at which we recognize that we will die but we are driven by the urge not to die.

“Man transcends death not only by continuing to feed his appetites, but especially by finding a meaning for his life, some kind of larger scheme into which he fits…the “immortal self” can take very spiritual forms, and spirituality is not a simple reflex of hunger and fear. It is an expression of the will to live, the burning desire of the creature to count, to make a difference on the planet because he has lived, has emerged from it, and has worked, suffered, and died.”

Many humans express this common sense view of belonging to a supernatural world through their religious belief; however, even those who are not religious are often captives of the mind/body dichotomy that is so prevalent in Western philosophy.

I think that to deal effectively with this paradox we must become sophisticated enough to comprehend its source and to modify it at that point or not at all.

What do you think?

Quotes from “Escape from Evil” by Ernest Becker

how do we know that dolphins do not consider themselves of an another supernatural kingdom?

What if dolphins have a God? And their God is bigger than our God?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2579784925_e809880aa1.jpg

Human Paradox

The human paradox might correctly be said to be: Humans are the one member of the animal kingdom wherein many members consider themselves to be also a member of a supernatural kingdom.

I define a paradox here to mean a common sense view of reality that is a logical contradiction, which presents a problem that cannot be solved but only ameliorated in some way through the process of our comprehending its nature.

Because most, but not all, humans are possessed by this paradoxical world view we pay a heavy price due to our constant effort to preserve this “fantastic ambition” rather than understanding its source and making corrections accordingly.

As a member of the animal kingdom we consume to live. We have an appetite and in feeding that appetite we often kill and consume other animals. We feel good after we consume and we will do whatever is necessary to continue to consume and to live. We have an absolute attraction to Eros, i.e. we have a consuming desire to do what is necessary to preserve our life.

Good is that which promotes our life and evil is that which threatens our life.

Eros drives us to a desire to live forever. Our brain has developed to the point at which we recognize that we will die but we are driven by the urge not to die.

“Man transcends death not only by continuing to feed his appetites, but especially by finding a meaning for his life, some kind of larger scheme into which he fits…the “immortal self” can take very spiritual forms, and spirituality is not a simple reflex of hunger and fear. It is an expression of the will to live, the burning desire of the creature to count, to make a difference on the planet because he has lived, has emerged from it, and has worked, suffered, and died.”

Many humans express this common sense view of belonging to a supernatural world through their religious belief; however, even those who are not religious are often captives of the mind/body dichotomy that is so prevalent in Western philosophy.

I think that to deal effectively with this paradox we must become sophisticated enough to comprehend its source and to modify it at that point or not at all.

What do you think?

Quotes from “Escape from Evil” by Ernest Becker

I think you're on the right path. What you describe is the very source of 'evil' (quoted, because I don't believe in the absolute concepts of good and evil).
You're not going to beat it out of humanity though, I can't tell you that much. It's our very nature.

I suppose humans could be viewed as something of a remarkably curious paradox. Not only are humans supposedly "animals," part of nature, but we also transcend nature, which sort of fuels my view, that we should be encouraged to multiply naturally a bit like animals, after marriage of course, welcoming babies to happen as they happen, and yet humans should also transcend nature, by not letting natural boundaries constrain our natural population growth. Something like letting the baby within the womb, eventually naturally "outgrow" the womb, towards whatever "birth" or transition into a far better realm, seems to possibly await.

Too bad, so people people are so closed-minded, as to not see the curious beauty of such strange and curious paradoxes, that so much benefit humans.

A few hours ago, I watched a “save the shark” program on TV which concluded with “While this program ran, 15,000 more sharks were killed.” Program also stated that more than 90% of the sharks have been killed. (By long line fishing mainly for the shark fins.) It pointed out that the population of small fish (not of commercial size. Fish that freely pass thru the trawlers nets) that sharks mainly feed on is now rapidly expanding and most are at the bottom of the food chain. This explosion of small fish is now devouring the photoplanton, faster than replacement rate.

Most of the world’s oxygen is produced by photoplanton of the oceans and photoplanton is the principle “sink” for the CO2 man’s burning of fossil fuels is releasing. Trees make only a relatively small contribution to both these essential tasks, and man is cutting them down – mainly for firewood but also for the fine mahogany etc furniture the richer humans can afford to buy. Main reason the Amazon forest is being destroyed is that a single mahogany tree can be worth $1000 when delivered illegally to the saw mill. (That is equal to about 6 months work at the minium wage in Brazil - a strong incentive to illegally cut the trees down in the huge un-policable forest.) The illegal loggers burn that area of the forest to hid their crimes after taking a few selected trees.

Think about this next time you enjoy a shark meat dinner on your mahogany table.

The TV program had some shocking scenes – sharks pulled on ship’s deck, for less than a minute while a couple of men cut all their fins off and then pushed them back into the water. This was followed by some under water video showing them sink, helpless without their fins, to the bottom to slowly bleed to death, if not killed by lack of oxygen first. (Sharks must constantly swim to force water thru their gills.) Either way it is about as horrible death as I can imagine. I did not see the start of the program and do not remember for sure, but think it was a BBC documentary.

SUMMARY: It is man who now decides (either knowing or in ignorance) which creatures live or die, not nature as it has been for millions of prior years. Man is clearly an out of control cancer that is killing much of the evolved biosphere, and probably himself when it is too badly disturbed from the conditions under which mankind evolved. That big brain ape is probably mother nature’s greatest mistake in the long run. Too "smart" (and arrogant) for his own good. - That is the real paradox.

A few hours ago, I watched a “save the shark” program on TV which concluded with “While this program ran, 15,000 more sharks were killed.” Program also stated that more than 90% of the sharks have been killed. (By long line fishing mainly for the shark fins.) It pointed out that the population of small fish (not of commercial size. Fish that freely pass thru the trawlers nets) that sharks mainly feed on is now rapidly expanding and most are at the bottom of the food chain. This explosion of small fish is now devouring the photoplanton, faster than replacement rate.

Most of the world’s oxygen is produced by photoplanton of the oceans and photoplanton is the principle “sink” for the CO2 man’s burning of fossil fuels is releasing. Trees make only a relatively small contribution to both these essential tasks, and man is cutting them down – mainly for firewood but also for the fine mahogany etc furniture the richer humans can afford to buy. Main reason the Amazon forest is being destroyed is that a single mahogany tree can be worth $1000 when delivered illegally to the saw mill. (That is equal to about 6 months work at the minium wage in Brazil - a strong incentive to illegally cut the trees down in the huge un-policable forest.) The illegal loggers burn that area of the forest to hid their crimes after taking a few selected trees.

Think about this next time you enjoy a shark meat dinner on your mahogany table.

The TV program had some shocking scenes – sharks pulled on ship’s deck, for less than a minute while a couple of men cut all their fins off and then pushed them back into the water. This was followed by some under water video showing them sink, helpless without their fins, to the bottom to slowly bleed to death, if not killed by lack of oxygen first. (Sharks must constantly swim to force water thru their gills.) Either way it is about as horrible death as I can imagine. I did not see the start of the program and do not remember for sure, but think it was a BBC documentary.

SUMMARY: It is man who now decides (either knowing or in ignorance) which creatures live or die, not nature as it has been for millions of prior years. Man is clearly an out of control cancer that is killing much of the evolved biosphere, and probably himself when it is too badly disturbed from the conditions under which mankind evolved. That big brain ape, is probably mother nature’s greatest mistake in the long run. Too "smart" (and arrogant) for his own good. - That is the real paradox.
Well said!
and congratulations to the Thread starter Coberst.
It is obvious that we do not work to our own survival in a way that is consistent to the long term.
Immediate gratification vs long term needs is a constant part of this conflict or paradox.

A hungry man in Brasil dying from starvation is not going to be too concerned about what happens in 100 years is he?

I might add as part of discussion that I have noticed I guess like a lot of observant people that the worlds population seems to have moved away from investing in their post-death futures.
In other words leaving less behind for family and children to inherit or utilize for their own children's futures etc.

An example classically shown is planned obsolescence, automobiles , houses, roads, commercial buildings, airports, and other infrastructures, systems, etc all planned to last only relatively short periods.
Government investment in major infrastructure such as energy delivery systems, food chain and supply, and logistic's have all suffered and moved towards shorter and shorter terms.
A distinct lack of vision beyond the next century is evident.

I have friends in Europe living in over 1000 year old houses [ no not mansions just houses] . Built to last hey?
However do they build like that today? Ha

The pyramids of Egypt as another example, Greek and Roman artifacts etc..

All will out last our modern investments by many years...

A few hours ago, I watched a “save the shark” program on TV which concluded with “While this program ran, 15,000 more sharks were killed.” Program also stated that more than 90% of the sharks have been killed. (By long line fishing mainly for the shark fins.) It pointed out that the population of small fish (not of commercial size. Fish that freely pass thru the trawlers nets) that sharks mainly feed on is now rapidly expanding and most are at the bottom of the food chain. This explosion of small fish is now devouring the photoplanton, faster than replacement rate.

Most of the world’s oxygen is produced by photoplanton of the oceans and photoplanton is the principle “sink” for the CO2 man’s burning of fossil fuels is releasing. Trees make only a relatively small contribution to both these essential tasks, and man is cutting them down – mainly for firewood but also for the fine mahogany etc furniture the richer humans can afford to buy. Main reason the Amazon forest is being destroyed is that a single mahogany tree can be worth $1000 when delivered illegally to the saw mill. (That is equal to about 6 months work at the minium wage in Brazil - a strong incentive to illegally cut the trees down in the huge un-policable forest.) The illegal loggers burn that area of the forest to hid their crimes after taking a few selected trees.

Think about this next time you enjoy a shark meat dinner on your mahogany table.

The TV program had some shocking scenes – sharks pulled on ship’s deck, for less than a minute while a couple of men cut all their fins off and then pushed them back into the water. This was followed by some under water video showing them sink, helpless without their fins, to the bottom to slowly bleed to death, if not killed by lack of oxygen first. (Sharks must constantly swim to force water thru their gills.) Either way it is about as horrible death as I can imagine. I did not see the start of the program and do not remember for sure, but think it was a BBC documentary.

SUMMARY: It is man who now decides (either knowing or in ignorance) which creatures live or die, not nature as it has been for millions of prior years. Man is clearly an out of control cancer that is killing much of the evolved biosphere, and probably himself when it is too badly disturbed from the conditions under which mankind evolved. That big brain ape, is probably mother nature’s greatest mistake in the long run. Too "smart" (and arrogant) for his own good. - That is the real paradox.
Very well said. I completely agree.

An example classically shown is planned obsolescence, automobiles , houses, roads, commercial buildings, airports, and other infrastructures, systems, etc all planned to last only relatively short periods.

That is a conspiracy theory. Automobiles are built to last as long as possible. You can get 300,000 miles out of a well-maintained car. Also, our modern buildings last much longer. Primitive cultures experienced shocking numbers of fires that would wipe out entire cities.

And the pyramids are not "lasting". When completed, they had perfectly-smooth surfaces that gleaned in the sunlight, were parts of massive complexes of other support structures which are all dust, and had interiors which have now been gutted.

You worship antiquity too much. I suspect it is an extension of your Naturalistic Fallacy, which is the dumbest and most evil philosophy on the planet today.

That is a conspiracy theory. Automobiles are built to last as long as possible. You can get 300,000 miles out of a well-maintained car. Also, our modern buildings last much longer. Primitive cultures experienced shocking numbers of fires that would wipe out entire cities.

And the pyramids are not "lasting". When completed, they had perfectly-smooth surfaces that gleaned in the sunlight, were parts of massive complexes of other support structures which are all dust, and had interiors which have now been gutted.

You worship antiquity too much. I suspect it is an extension of your Naturalistic Fallacy, which is the dumbest and most evil philosophy on the planet today.

plz read your post. ty.

That is a conspiracy theory. Automobiles are built to last as long as possible. You can get 300,000 miles out of a well-maintained car. Also, our modern buildings last much longer. Primitive cultures experienced shocking numbers of fires that would wipe out entire cities.

And the pyramids are not "lasting". When completed, they had perfectly-smooth surfaces that gleaned in the sunlight, were parts of massive complexes of other support structures which are all dust, and had interiors which have now been gutted.

You worship antiquity too much. I suspect it is an extension of your Naturalistic Fallacy, which is the dumbest and most evil philosophy on the planet today.

your irrationality is showing Swivel. I suggest you do some proper research into how old the artifacts I talked of are compared to any modern stucture and tell me again how wrong I am...

Also regarding automobiles it is a fact that most if not all contemporary manufacturers wind back supply of components and parts in s given time frame. You should know this. And I wonder why you don't?

Also a simple observation turns into a conspiracy theory in your mind which says more about what you actually fear than what you suggest you don't.
The facts remain to be seen if you choose to look..and of course our shark fishermen and forest burners do as you do and ignore the obvious ramifications of their actions because of their greed and selfish short term interests.
Tell me Swivel do you have children that are going to choke on your self denial and ignorance?
Conspiracy theory indeed!

your irrationality is showing Swivel. I suggest you do some proper research into how old the artifacts I talked of are compared to any modern stucture and tell me again how wrong I am...

I am honored to have you call me irrational. It validates my sanity. The day you agree with me is the day that I re-think my entire philosophy.

You are comparing the age of a pile of rocks to the age of modern structures? How can you tell how long modern structures last?

Here's the mistake: You scan the entire Earth and see the 5 things still standing (though you mention Roman ruins which are just that... in ruins). The things you CAN'T SEE are the billions of ancient structures that rotted, burned and crumbled. The obvious nature of this bias is mind-numbing.

We have a lunar landing module on the moon that will be in great shape, barring the sort of unlucky meteor strike that would end any structure, ancient or modern, long after everything your precious ancients ever build. Same goes for our space probes, artificial diamonds, our gold bars, our bunkers, our modern concrete buildings, etc...

Auto manufacturers stop stocking parts for older vehicles because there are less and less of them on the road. There is no such thing as planned obsolescence. Every manufacturer is competing with the others to create longer-lasting tires, batteries, light-bulbs, computers, TV's, etc...

You aren't even close to being correct here.

a normal house brick has the life expectancy of 30 years.......egad!

The local super expensive ultra modern Shopping centre is expecting to be ready for demolishing in 60 years according to the engineers that built it.

Years ago families invested in-perpetuity, family name, assets and welfare...don;t see that all that much these days.

The legacy of Chernobyl reactor #4 is good testimony to short sited-ness and I suppose you will consider that to be a conspiracy theory?

still burning and super hot even today. Any thoughts as to what that underground fire is doing to the environment?

please note that coinçidence if you like of Gorby and Reagen meeting for the first time 3 months earlier to wind down the USSR - [I dont believe in coincidence by the way]

The local super expensive ultra modern Shopping centre is expecting to be ready for demolishing in 60 years according to the engineers that built it.

Years ago families invested in-perpetuity, family name, assets and welfare...don;t see that all that much these days.

Bullshit. Years ago families lived in a state of near-starvation. Half the kids didn't make it to adulthood. People owned NOTHING because one man owned the entire kingdom. Slavery was rampant. Women were raped and abused. Most structures were torn down or built on TOP of. Most ancient cities have layers of previous cities underneath them as they built on top and on top again.

And one of the first pyramids cracked its foundation and was abandoned. Another started to shift and was also abandoned. They didn't even last one lifetime! And after the first intermediary phase Pharaohs saw the pyramids for the colossal failures that they were and started burying themselves in the valley of the Kings. You are worshiping something that you haven't studied, obviously.

Some primitive societies lived in structures that had to be re-built every day. Europe is littered with the shells of castles, crumbling and ruined. Your major argument still hinges on large piles of crumbling rock that didn't even serve their intended purpose: to protect the bodies and treasures of the dead.

Big-time fail, dude.

I think that one substantial consequence of this mind/body dichotomy is that today we are left with a Sunday-school morality as our guide for adaptation of relationships in a high tech world.

There is no such thing as planned obsolescence. Although I generally agree with you that many durable things are being built today, it is nevertheless quite true that planned obsolescence is common and significant in the modern industrial economy.

It is also true that, for example, few of the houses being constructed today in the suburbs of the US will last as long as a great deal - not a vanishingly small percentage - of the construction visible in the older cities and more prosperous rural areas of Europe.

We seem to have entered an era of unprecedented human expansion and influence, and we do lack an appropriate ethical support or moral structure to guide our doings. The old agricultural and pastoral religions are simply not adequate for the modern decisions.

Although I generally agree with you that many durable things are being built today, it is nevertheless quite true that planned obsolescence is common and significant in the modern industrial economy.

It is also true that, for example, few of the houses being constructed today in the suburbs of the US will last as long as a great deal - not a vanishingly small percentage - of the construction visible in the older cities and more prosperous rural areas of Europe.

We seem to have entered an era of unprecedented human expansion and influence, and we do lack an appropriate ethical support or moral structure to guide our doings. The old agricultural and pastoral religions are simply not adequate for the modern decisions.

thanks and well said

The human paradox that Corbest discusses leads one to the question:
"How many Neros are fiddling their fiddles as this planets eco system faces ultimate ruination.?"
This is the ultimate cost of the paradox as mentioned in the OP. - head in sand and apathy.

...Also regarding automobiles it is a fact that most if not all contemporary manufacturers wind back supply of components and parts in a given time frame.


...Auto manufacturers stop stocking parts for older vehicles because there are less and less of them on the road. There is no such thing as planned obsolescence. ...

Cars, like most everything man makes do have a “design life.” Whether you call it “planned obsolescence” or not is mainly a matter of choice - a POV. This has been true of cars for more than 80 years as following true story will prove:

In 1920s Henry Ford hired a mechanic with no task but to travel all over the US visiting junk yards for more than a year. The mechanic was to disassemble all the Fords he found that had NOT been in any accident to find out why they had been scrapped.

The mechanic's finally report was detailed and noted that not one Ford had failed because of a snapped king-pin. (That sort of T-shape piece of steel that allows the front wheels to turn.) Henry called in his engineers after reading his mechanic's report and told them:

"Make the king-pins cheaper and lighter."

It just makes good sense to design all components of any complex system to have the same expected serviceable lifetime.

How long that lifetime should be is also a logical, rational, economic choice, but a complex one with different answer for the customer and the maker of the product. For example, steel car body is relative strong, cheap and quickly formed by presses, compared to aluminum or fiber glass, but will not last as long. (And requires painting to prevent rust). There have been a few all aluminum and many fiber glass car bodies made, but steel is very dominate.

What would be the point of a car body that last 50+ years, unless the rest of the car can too? So long as there is competition for car sales among different makers, one can be sure that at least some bias towards a cheaper initial price (lower expected lifetime) will exist and this also tends to make the unit production cost decline (as annual production required for replacement is greater.)

Style is unfortunately (IMHO) very important to most customers and this adds considerably to the cost with model changes each year. At least that is what one might assume as it results in a smaller production runs for each model; this however is demonstrably false:

My Ph.D. thesis adviser bought a Checker (A large maker of many taxi cabs with 10 or more years between significant model changes.) expecting it to last at least 300,000 miles prior to any major failure. (As it turned out the car lasted longer than he did. - It was part of his estate and sold rather cheaply, I think.) He paid much more for it than a Chevy or Ford as every year (until now at least) Chevy and Ford sold more cars of each model than Checker does, despite their annual model changes. (Had lower unit costs due to volume in part)

When the US big three all are bankrupt, and dollar is too weak to import foreign cars, perhaps we will all driver Checker made cars and be done with this style change nonsense, which unfortunately is necessary and economical given the fact that most buyers want it. I.e. few buy the fixed style Checkers even with their longer life expectances and lower life cycle costs. (Assuming you do not die before wearing the durable Checker out, as my adviser did.)

Perhaps someone will post the cost of a new Checker and its average life expectancy? Is it still the lowest life cycle cost car?

The human paradox that Corbest discusses leads one to the question:
"How many Neros are fiddling their fiddles as this planets eco system faces ultimate ruination.?"
This is the ultimate cost of the paradox as mentioned in the OP. - head in sand and apathy.

Better question yet is who will be able to stop them? :shrug:

It is also true that, for example, few of the houses being constructed today in the suburbs of the US will last as long as a great deal - not a vanishingly small percentage - of the construction visible in the older cities and more prosperous rural areas of Europe.


Up where I live they are still building houses out of stone block. Stone inside and out. These houses will last thousands of years without doubt.

The reason a lot of European buildings still stand is because they were built out of stone. Know why? Because those primitive societies that QQ seems to worship as superior had deforested Europe in the wasteful heating of their homes. England was mostly deforested by 1350. Continental Europe had the same problem. This is why most of the structures built before then are long gone, they were built similarly to how most houses here are built, only not as well.

Planned obsolescence is conspiracy theory. We live in a disposable culture that throws away perfectly good items in the lust for something newer and shinier. This is a product of the envy and greed present in every hominid. It is not something created by the producers, it is a demand generated by we, the consumers. One of the most enticing features of any product is price, which creates a massive demand for the most stuff as cheap as we can get it. When producers satisfy this demand they should be applauded, not castigated.

QQ suffers from the Naturalistic Fallacy. I'm trying to help him with that. I don't want him worshiping cultures that burned witches and cut down every tree in sight and forced people to worship a particular god upon threat of torture. Nor do I want him frowning on modern culture just because we are now wealthy enough to satisfy the delights that humans have harbored since before the pyramids were built. Why should the Pharaohs be the only ones with shiny things to be buried with? Such a philosophy leads to very real evils, my friend.

But...but....but..... we didn't know what we know now years ago Swivel. We were ignorant of what our actions did to our long term survival.

We do however know a great deal more now and the ignorance excuse is washing a bit thin IMO.....

Most buildings were torn down by rival groups either to utilise their stone for other structures or as revenge or other nasty motive...most artworks destroyed or disfigured as a slight against their creators...humans of the past behaved reprehensibly and in many cases still do.

One of the main reasons the pyramids still stand today is because no one could be bothered trying to steal those big blocks of stone....People just being people I guess.

The paradox in some ways can be seen in the use of "arbitary intelligence" with out the wisdom to support it.

The wisdom is part of the philosophical side of humanity and is far from arbitary.

Cars, like most everything man makes do have a “design life.” Whether you call it “planned obsolescence” or not is mainly a matter of choice - a POV. This has been true of cars for more than 80 years as following true story will prove:

In 1920s Henry Ford hired a mechanic with no task but to travel all over the US visiting junk yards for more than a year. The mechanic was to disassemble all the Fords he found that had NOT been in any accident to find out why they had been scrapped.

The mechanic's finally report was detailed and noted that not one Ford had failed because of a snapped king-pin. (That sort of T-shape piece of steel that allows the front wheels to turn.) Henry called in his engineers after reading his mechanic's report and told them:

"Make the king-pins cheaper and lighter."

It just makes good sense to design all components of any complex system to have the same expected serviceable lifetime.

How long that lifetime should be is also a logical, rational, economic choice, but a complex one with different answer for the customer and the maker of the product. For example, steel car body is relative strong, cheap and quickly formed by presses, compared to aluminum or fiber glass, but will not last as long. (And requires painting to prevent rust). There have been a few all aluminum and many fiber glass car bodies made, but steel is very dominate.

What would be the point of a car body that last 50+ years, unless the rest of the car can too? So long as there is competition for car sales among different makers, one can be sure that at least some bias towards a cheaper initial price (lower expected lifetime) will exist and this also tends to make the unit production cost decline (as annual production required for replacement is greater.)

Style is unfortunately (IMHO) very important to most customers and this adds considerably to the cost with model changes each year. At least that is what one might assume as it results in a smaller production runs for each model; this however is demonstrably false:

My Ph.D. thesis adviser bought a Checker (A large maker of many taxi cabs with 10 or more years between significant model changes.) expecting it to last at least 300,000 miles prior to any major failure. (As it turned out the car lasted longer than he did. - It was part of his estate and sold rather cheaply, I think.) He paid much more for it than a Chevy or Ford as every year (until now at least) Chevy and Ford sold more cars of each model than Checker does, despite their annual model changes. (Had lower unit costs due to volume in part)

When the US big three all are bankrupt, and dollar is too weak to import foreign cars, perhaps we will all driver Checker made cars and be done with this style change nonsense, which unfortunately is necessary and economical given the fact that most buyers want it. I.e. few buy the fixed style Checkers even with their longer life expectances and lower life cycle costs. (Assuming you do not die before wearing the durable Checker out, as my adviser did.)

Perhaps someone will post the cost of a new Checker and its average life expectancy? Is it still the lowest life cycle cost car?
yes I basically concur.
However the point I was attempting to make is that humanity appears to have reduced the extent of it's emotional and financial investment beyond their mortality.... A "general-istic" observation and one I am sure will be supported adequately if one bothered to do the proper surveys and research.
And of course this is an aside to the Op topic.

QQ suffers from the Naturalistic Fallacy. I'm trying to help him with that. I don't want him worshiping cultures that burned witches and cut down every tree in sight and forced people to worship a particular god upon threat of torture. Nor do I want him frowning on modern culture just because we are now wealthy enough to satisfy the delights that humans have harbored since before the pyramids were built. Why should the Pharaohs be the only ones with shiny things to be buried with? Such a philosophy leads to very real evils, my friend.
I do appreciate your concerns Swivel.

I attempt to take the most realistic approach to the "beast and the beauty" that humanity is. We are such a dynamic race of individuals after all.
And as mankind moves and grows from a position of relative insanity and in to a more sane position sometime into the future, it has to struggle with those attributes that could be deemed to be "insane".

Religious dogma becoming or maturing into a more pathenistic style or whorship is an example of that trend to wards a better state of mental/emotional health. [IMO] { re - your naturalist fallacy comment}
But along the way reality checks are needed to avoid the possibility of not surviving the journey and the eco-catastrophy pending is one such reality check. The need to extend our vision beyond our own graves and plan for a future that we are not going to directly participate in are all part of finding a better way to survival of the species.

If every generation invested only for their own life time the human race as a race of volition and sophistication is doomed to exist only for a few generations...
When our forfathers in their wisdom planned to build nations and cities they did so with perpetuality in mind... where are those leaders today? any one?

Man transcends death not only by continuing to feed his appetites, but especially by finding a meaning for his life, some kind of larger scheme into which he fits…the “immortal self” can take very spiritual forms, and spirituality is not a simple reflex of hunger and fear. It is an expression of the will to live, the burning desire of the creature to count, to make a difference on the planet because he has lived, has emerged from it, and has worked, suffered, and died.Civilization is our "immortal self." We are all cells in an "organism" that is greater than any of us and has a much longer lifespan. By contributing to the maintenance of civilization, even through such a humble activity as stacking the canned peas in a grocery store, we give our lives meaning that is greater than survival and the satisfaction of our individual needs. Abraham Maslow dealt with this when he mapped out "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs": survival-security-love-esteem-fulfillment. (Those aren't his exact names for the Five Steps of Maslow's Hierarchy but I always condense them into single, more easily remembered words when I teach it in passing. "Sound bites," I suppose.:))

The fourth step, esteem, is where we are nurtured by the respect of others for the things we have accomplished that transcend our own individual needs. Fulfillment goes a step beyond that (Maslow's term is "self-actualization"): not just maintaining civilization or even picking up someone else's slack, but doing something to advance it.
Many humans express this common sense view of belonging to a supernatural world through their religious belief; however, even those who are not religious are often captives of the mind/body dichotomy that is so prevalent in Western philosophy.I don't like your use of the word "supernatural" to describe this ambition. If you were the first one to coin it then of course you'd be correct, because it highlights man's transcendence over nature, by using our uniquely massive forebrain to redirect and even completely override our primitive instincts. But "supernatural" has come to mean something else: a second universe outside the natural universe, whose inhabitants capriciously interfere with the operation of the natural universe for their own amusement.

Religion is indeed a codification of the supernatural, the "fantastic" as it were, but it is not a "fantastic ambition" in the sense you're describing. Religion is nothing more than a collection of what Jung calls "archetypes," which are merely instinctive beliefs and thought patterns hard-wired into our synapses by the vagaries of evolution: ancient survival behaviors that have long outlived their usefulness, genetic bottlenecks, etc. Religion therefore can be seen as the very opposite of the ambition you're looking for, because it is atavistic and reinforces our most primitive instinctive behaviors. This can be seen in the headlines of any newspaper, reporting on the way religion reinforces our Stone Age pack-social instinct, pitting tribe against tribe over their conflicting manifestations of their inborn supernatural motifs, and constantly threatening to bring down civilization, rather than advancing or even maintaining it.
. . . . more than 90% of the sharks have been killed. (By long line fishing mainly for the shark fins.). . . . Think about this next time you enjoy a shark meat dinner. . . .As you noted, most sharks are killed for their fins, which are considered a delicacy in a part of the world none of us lives in. I don't think the tiny pile of shark steaks that occasionally appears in my supermarket for adventurous eaters requires unsustainable fishing.
I might add as part of discussion that I have noticed I guess like a lot of observant people that the worlds population seems to have moved away from investing in their post-death futures. I have friends in Europe living in over 1000 year old houses [ no not mansions just houses] . Built to last hey? However do they build like that today? Ha The pyramids of Egypt as another example, Greek and Roman artifacts etc. All will out last our modern investments by many years...Many of the artifacts of our "throwaway economy" do indeed represent the squandering of non-renewable resources, with plastic being the most egregious of the lot. But houses and commercial buildings are not. Except for a rather small portion of their mass like plastic plumbing and electrical fittings, a demolished building is pretty much "ashes to ashes and dust to dust." And as other responses to your post have pointed out, those ancient constructions may still be standing, but only in the strictest sense of the word. Most of them are not habitable except as rudimentary campsites, and if they weren't cultural treasures they'd be torn down.
That is a conspiracy theory. Automobiles are built to last as long as possible. You can get 300,000 miles out of a well-maintained car.I beg to differ. Only a small percentage of any model last that long. I have a 1980 diesel-engine Mercedes-Benz, generally acknowledged as the world's best-built car. It has only 240,000 miles and it's ready for the junk heap. The heater core has failed, a $1,500 repair. Which means I've got no heat, no A/C, and worst of all in the winter months, no defroster. Sure, I could fix it, but that's hardly a reasonable deployment of funds. Even people like my wife and me, who consider a car a member of the family and keep it for decades, cannot dependably expect to get 300,000 miles, even on the models that are regarded as exceptionally well-engineered like Toyota or Volvo.
The local super expensive ultra modern Shopping centre is expecting to be ready for demolishing in 60 years according to the engineers that built it.I'm glad someone finally posted that figure; I've been looking for it. Baron Max, who was an architect before he became a full-time curmudgeon on SciForums, said that he'd never heard of the service life being estimated for the buildings he worked on. He seemed to be assuring me that they'd last for thousands of years, like the pyramids, if they were simply kept watertight since water is the greatest threat to their integrity.
Years ago families invested in-perpetuity, family name, assets and welfare... don't see that all that much these days.I am certain that this is a temporary condition, a phenomenon of the Paradigm Shift we have the luck to be living through, from an industry-based economy to an information-based economy. (Some Chinese guy must have cursed us: "May you live during interesting times.":)) My grandparents' generation (born in the late 19th century) were notorious for planning for the future at the expense of present consumption.

Nice post Fraggle,

To me the issue of "supernatural source " could be inevitably relegated to what has been coined in the past as the "God Complex". That somehow we individually wish to exercise God like power over ourselves, those around us and that of the environment.
The source is actually our innate sense of individual superiority over everything else and our rise to more power ambitions, but most of all it is our sheer arrogance that prevents us from remembering that every one eles has just the same ambition and thus conflict is inevitable until the "God's" learn to get along and stop fighting each other.
The road to co-operation and fair sharing of resources has been a long and hard one and one yet to be accomplished in our evolution towards a more peaceful co-existence.

So in a sense this innate God complex leads to things such as religion, and other power struggles.
Ironically religion seems to existentialise the inner God and thus grant man a lesser position [humble ] of humility. When God is no longer existentialised and becomes ourselves in the form seen in our individualistic cultures we run into serious ego issues and war ensues but in an inner sense rather than what happend in the past which was existentialised warfare....ww2 ww1 Bonaparte etc etc...

So regarding the OP topic the source could be this God Complex IMO

I'm glad someone finally posted that figure; I've been looking for it. Baron Max, who was an architect before he became a full-time curmudgeon on SciForums, said that he'd never heard of the service life being estimated for the buildings he worked on. He seemed to be assuring me that they'd last for thousands of years, like the pyramids, if they were simply kept watertight since water is the greatest threat to their integrity.

Funnilly enough in this case it is the life expectancy of the welding, riveting and bolts that sets it up for demolision in 60 years. being primarilly a massive steel construction with a veneer of brick, cement, tiles , glass, and plaster over the top of it... quite impressive engineering IMO but strictly designed to a limited life expectancy.

And yes humidity, moisture and actual rain/storm water woud be the greatest factor. Although these days they think of ultra violet radiation and other less obvious factors such as oxidisation, and in the case of welding and bolts, crystalisation due to micro flexing [I think ]

The lessons from the twin trade tower collapses of 9/11 are still being learned so it seems

The lessons from the twin trade tower collapses of 9/11 are still being learned so it seemsI read an article quoting a letter from an engineer who blamed the New York City government. They passed a law against the use of asbestos when the towers were almost exactly half completed. The upper floors had to be fireproofed with another material. He claimed that no other fireproofing material available at the time was as light as asbestos, so in order to avoid overloading the carrying capacity of the floors that were already built, they had to use less fireproofing material than was required to do the job right. He went on to point out that it was estimated that by eliminating half of the asbestos in the WTC, three lives would be saved per century. Instead, it took a toll three orders of magnitude greater.

However, when I posted that on SciForums, an architect spoke up and said that the guy was wrong. I haven't seen it discussed further, so I have no idea who's right.

...I have no idea who's right.That is another human paradox. Once you leave the realm of math and physics, "truth" is very plastic and easily shaped to serve almost any POV.

E.g.Israel committed war crimes -T or F?

I read an article quoting a letter from an engineer who blamed the New York City government. They passed a law against the use of asbestos when the towers were almost exactly half completed. The upper floors had to be fireproofed with another material. He claimed that no other fireproofing material available at the time was as light as asbestos, so in order to avoid overloading the carrying capacity of the floors that were already built, they had to use less fireproofing material than was required to do the job right. He went on to point out that it was estimated that by eliminating half of the asbestos in the WTC, three lives would be saved per century. Instead, it took a toll three orders of magnitude greater.

However, when I posted that on SciForums, an architect spoke up and said that the guy was wrong. I haven't seen it discussed further, so I have no idea who's right.

I don't get the asbestos-scare. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance. There are some areas, I think one part of San Fran is one, where the level of asbestos in the air is far above what was determined to be "un-safe", but there are no ill effects.

If I remember correctly, the only type of asbestos which is really dangerous, and can get into your lungs and barb itself in tight is a kind that was never used in civilian applications. It was reserved for military and extremely specialized industrial usage. The kind that went into homes is safe enough to eat, and misguided politics and enviro-scare tactics just led to MASSIVE wastes in money, and likely many lost lives.

I don't get the asbestos-scare. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance. There are some areas, I think one part of San Fran is one, where the level of asbestos in the air is far above what was determined to be "un-safe", but there are no ill effects.

If I remember correctly, the only type of asbestos which is really dangerous, and can get into your lungs and barb itself in tight is a kind that was never used in civilian applications. It was reserved for military and extremely specialized industrial usage. The kind that went into homes is safe enough to eat, and misguided politics and enviro-scare tactics just led to MASSIVE wastes in money, and likely many lost lives.
the main reason for the shift in attitude to the asbestos issue is purely one of litigation...Hardey's Ltd. here in Australia faced and paid out enourmous amounts of compensation money for "victims" of asbestos related diseases. amongst them Pneumoconiosis [ asbestosis ]

But it is not one of philanthropy but one mainly because of potential litigation, the same with smoking tobacco.

When our forfathers in their wisdom planned to build nations and cities they did so with perpetuality in mind... where are those leaders today? any one?

Maybe the idea is that future generations will come up with something new and better before the end of time, and as such there is less need to build stuff to last forever. Because we can expect improvement and wish to replace the inferior old with the superior new. But that's just speculation, and you're probably right that we should build things to last longer.

I don't get the asbestos-scare. Asbestos is a naturally-occurring substance. There are some areas, I think one part of San Fran is one, where the level of asbestos in the air is far above what was determined to be "un-safe", but there are no ill effects. And you are sure there are no ill effects because you've checked?

Asbestos is dangerous, and at least the people who worked with it - in the form used in housing and pipe insulation, brake linings in cars, etc - suffered ill effects.

Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance, found in drinking water all over the planet. It has ill effects. If there is too much of it - as in the aquifer under a good share of Bangladesh - the ill effects can be strikingly apparent to the experienced eye, even as they are accepted as normal by the people who live in the area.

Preventing the wholesale introduction of asbestos into daily life is simply prudent. Whether the complete ban now in force is overkill, can be questioned - but use that results in steadily rising levels of the stuff is not a good idea.

OT In general, durability can be: resistant, repairable, replaceable. The "replaceable" form of durability could also be labeled "sustainable" - a grass lawn is a durable ground cover, replacing itself every year.

US suburban and rural housing is in general none of those three - which is due to be a problem in a generation or two.

. . . . and you're probably right that we should build things to last longer.That's not universally true. It depends on the maturity of the technology involved, among many other things. It's pretty easy to keep a 1950s-era American car running and many people do so for nostalgia. No $1000 computer to rattle itself to pieces, no $1500 air bags to decompose over time, etc. But those missing parts are the very things that make those antique cars no longer roadworthy, no matter how well the few parts they actually have work. Not to mention, the fuel consumption of those "classics" was 8-14 miles per gallon (16-28 L/100km). Who would want to drive one of today's cars thirty years from now when fuel is $25 per gallon?

But there are other considerations too. Paradigm shifts are, by definition, unpredictable, and no one could have foreseen the Information Revolution. Would it have been worth the enormous expense (and use of resources) to build highways, overpasses, etc., that would last hundreds of years, not knowing that within the lifetime of you younger people the majority of the workforce will be telecommuting and your children may see the day when very little travel takes place for purposes other than recreation and socializing?

How about office buildings? They will become obsolete before the end of this century, for the same reason as twelve-lane freeways.