[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?

[alancalverd]

I didn't say better, nor are they rules for following. They are tests to classify a proposed action as moral or otherwise.

However if everyone abstained from actions that fail my tests, the world could be a happier place. They are, after all, the basis of the legal system in a civilised country, and of international law. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I didn't say better, nor are they rules for following. They are tests to classify a proposed action as moral or otherwise.

However if everyone abstained from actions that fail my tests, the world could be a happier place. They are, after all, the basis of the legal system in a civilised country, and of international law. 

Is happier means better?
Is there any case where happiest moment is rather worse?  Or less happy is actually better?
If there's an alternative method to get happier place that is more effective and efficient without passing your tests, is it permissible?

[alancalverd]

Happier means happier.

Ways to make the world a happier and more efficient place are to reduce the population density everywhere to a sustainable level, abolish religion, and establish a single world government. We would have to kill a lot of parasites to achieve this, and establish means of preventing their recurrence.

The laws of secular states are generally similar so the single government could be put in place fairly quickly. The trick would be to base the laws on interpersonal behavior (as in the USA) rather than maintenance of market prices (as in the EU). This nascent global state could then apply trade sanctions to any state that did not adopt these laws as supreme, and thus erode theocracies over time.  My plans for a painless  (indeed joyful) reduction of the population have been discussed elsewhere in this forum.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Happier means happier.

Why does it preferred over less happy?

What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?

Are those cases just the same?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ways to make the world a happier and more efficient place are to reduce the population density everywhere to a sustainable level, abolish religion, and establish a single world government. We would have to kill a lot of parasites to achieve this, and establish means of preventing their recurrence.

What makes you think that current population density is not sustainable?
How do you abolish religion? What should be done to those who practice religion in secret?

[alancalverd]

What makes you think that current population density is not sustainable?
How do you abolish religion? What should be done to those who practice religion in secret?

1. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but most of it is in the wrong place, and with increasing urbanisation, that problem is growing. So we need to process and transport it, which needs fossil fuels, which are not sustainable.

About 30% of all food now grown, depends on artificial fertilisers and mechanical sowing and harvesting, all of which require fossil fuels. 

We might all scratch a living from the soil (it takes about one acre of arable land per capita in temperate regions) but most of us aspire to a western standard of living which demands at least 5 kW per capita of energy on tap, which requires fossil fuels.

2. Classify religious speech as hate speech wherever the religion preaches discrimination of any sort, and as fraud wherever anyone promises an afterlife or any other non-deliverable benefit in exchange for goods, money or service.

3. Require educational curricula to include the dangers of faith and the history of religious conflict.

4. Speak nicely to British Sikhs and explain that the reasonable exemption from crash helmet laws for those wearing turbans has created an unfortunate and unforeseen precedent that excuses egregious behavior on religious grounds. Suggest that for the  greater good, they might agree to end the exemption as a good example and new precedent.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

1. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone, but most of it is in the wrong place, and with increasing urbanisation, that problem is growing. So we need to process and transport it, which needs fossil fuels, which are not sustainable.

About 30% of all food now grown, depends on artificial fertilisers and mechanical sowing and harvesting, all of which require fossil fuels. 

We might all scratch a living from the soil (it takes about one acre of arable land per capita in temperate regions) but most of us aspire to a western standard of living which demands at least 5 kW per capita of energy on tap, which requires fossil fuels.

If the problem is fossil fuel, then the solution is electrification from more sustainable sources. Some researches I've read say that combination of solar, wind, and battery is the best option.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

2. Classify religious speech as hate speech wherever the religion preaches discrimination of any sort, and as fraud wherever anyone promises an afterlife or any other non-deliverable benefit in exchange for goods, money or service.

3. Require educational curricula to include the dangers of faith and the history of religious conflict.

4. Speak nicely to British Sikhs and explain that the reasonable exemption from crash helmet laws for those wearing turbans has created an unfortunate and unforeseen precedent that excuses egregious behavior on religious grounds. Suggest that for the  greater good, they might agree to end the exemption as a good example and new precedent.

They might work, if the law makers were rational thinkers supported by rational constituents.
Unfortunately, it's rarely the case.

[alancalverd]

If the problem is fossil fuel, then the solution is electrification from more sustainable sources. Some researches I've read say that combination of solar, wind, and battery is the best option.

Certainly feasible where the population density is low, but we have discussed the required collection area per capita elsewhere in this forum and it really doesn't seem feasible in western Europe, even without battery storage. I was encouraged today by an interview with the CEO of the Energy Council who said that hydrogen was the  way to go - some sense seems to have pervaded the corridors of power at last!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

even without battery storage.

The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I was encouraged today by an interview with the CEO of the Energy Council who said that hydrogen was the  way to go - some sense seems to have pervaded the corridors of power at last!

They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Happier means happier.

Why does it preferred over less happy?

What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?

Are those cases just the same?

If you think that happiness is an independent parameter from goodness, then it has nothing to do with morality.

[alancalverd]

The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.

but a lot of cost and a considerable expenditure of fossil fuel to make the battery

[alancalverd]

They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .

And because it can use existing infrastructure for storage and distribution, and requires very little modification of the machinery we already use for moving and heating, unlike electricity which requires us to replace practically all vehicles and cookers, boilers, furnaces.....You can even burn hydrogen in a conventional power station to make electricity!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They prefer hydrogen because they think it can save the current business of their members, which are mostly related to oil and gas. .

And because it can use existing infrastructure for storage and distribution, and requires very little modification of the machinery we already use for moving and heating, unlike electricity which requires us to replace practically all vehicles and cookers, boilers, furnaces.....You can even burn hydrogen in a conventional power station to make electricity!

The same argument could be used to resist disruptive transition from horse powered chariots to gas powered cars. In the end, effectiveness and efficiency of the technologies to serve their functions will determine whether or not they are more widely accepted.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The battery storage can be put below the solar array, hence no need additional area.

but a lot of cost and a considerable expenditure of fossil fuel to make the battery

Why can't the battery be produced without fossil fuel?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Happier means happier.

Why does it preferred over less happy?

What do you expect to happen if everyone follow your rules?
What do you expect to happen if everyone don't follow your rules?
How do you justify that the first case is better than the last?

Are those cases just the same?

If you think that happiness is an independent parameter from goodness, then it has nothing to do with morality.

The lack of consensus in study of morality can be attributed to inconsistency of the meaning of words we use in the discussion, and refusal to address hidden assumptions that we made in making assertions.

[alancalverd]

The same argument could be used to resist disruptive transition from horse powered chariots to gas powered cars. In the end, effectiveness and efficiency of the technologies to serve their functions will determine whether or not they are more widely accepted.

Only if there are no other constraints such as availability of capital and resources, actual need, or flexibility of the alternative.

Fact is that we have most of the infrastructure in place for a hydrogen-powered economy, so very little capital is required. Most domestic and industrial heating is done by grid-supplied gas, so the least end-user investment to achieve zero carbon is to change the gas from methane to hydrogen (we've already done the opposite, 60 years ago!). Similarly for vehicles: a bit more infrastructure is needed but most existing vehicles can be modified rather than scrapped, and we won't need to mine and process any more materials for batteries and motors (mining and refining use a lot of fossil fuel).   

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Fact is that we have most of the infrastructure in place for a hydrogen-powered economy, so very little capital is required. Most domestic and industrial heating is done by grid-supplied gas, so the least end-user investment to achieve zero carbon is to change the gas from methane to hydrogen (we've already done the opposite, 60 years ago!). Similarly for vehicles: a bit more infrastructure is needed but most existing vehicles can be modified rather than scrapped, and we won't need to mine and process any more materials for batteries and motors (mining and refining use a lot of fossil fuel).   

Time will tell. But big auto companies tried to produce hydrogen cars to compete with battery cars have given up their efforts, which means that they see it as not an economically viable option.