As developing countries become wealthier, their energy consumption also increases. Indonesia is one of those countries.

And we should stop all this bs about pointing fingers on who emits more CO2 and causing more environmental destruction. We're all guilty. Rich countries outsource cheap manufacturing to cheaper countries that cut on environmental standards to produce cheap goods we all take for granted. Then the rising middle class in these developing countries is catching up on consumption rate, topping up on the increasing greenhouse emission and adds to environmental degradation.

We're all guilty, and the sooner we recognise this instead of blaming each other and being cynical doomers, the sooner we could be more proactive as a collective to finding solutions on curbing climate change.

I appreciate the differences in opinion, but if you have read the article, the author himself does imply there is room for subjectivity as much as for objectivity when it comes to handling life situations in general using philosophy. I mean, life itself is too complex, it is a paradox. As the author stated: "there is no formula".

From certain Eastern philosophical and Stoic perspective, attempting to rid adversity is a fruitless endeavour and one should come to terms with its existence as concept. But neither schools of thought would recommend anyone to deliberately subject themselves to extreme adversities. Running every morning or working in a job under tight schedule is not the same as being in abject poverty or slavery. There are certain adversities that are more manageable which builds character.

> If philosophy is for helping us deal with whatever comes it's primary importance cannot be in the managing of adversity.

Good fortune is as unpredictable and random as facing difficulties. Some philosophies, namely Buddhism and Stoicism, cautions people to not be spoiled by good fortunes, because I think we both know that this could lead to the person being complacent. Philosophy could also teach to re-shift one's perspective and continually be pro-active to resolving problems that could be reasonably managed.

> Then we have people who differ on what makes the ideal life objectively worth living. And if you're saying some people think the good life consists in raising a family for them, but they don't think doing so will result in the good life for others, we are talking about preferences, or something smaller than the good life, not the good life itself.

Then would you agree that pursuing what a good life is is also subjective? That is basically my point. Defining good life is as objective as subjective. I am just positing my views based from Eastern concept of yin and yang.

> The idea that general well-being is subjective is itself kind of silly, given that we are talking about something that is universal, or at least adheres equally to every human being. There's no good reason for thinking that something which is true of 100% of human beings is subjective.

Some people think their answer to good and/or meaningful life is to have raise a family with children, others think they're happy being childless. I think we can both agree that either desires/goals are perfectly valid. It's complexity like this that rather makes defining arbitrarily what a good life is difficult. If we are to discuss universal human values, it's the mutual respect-- golden rule-- that is arguably the most enduring and arbitrary (but even morality is arguably a construct and therefore subjective but that is a discussion worthy of its own time).

>And to that I would say: this is not a philosophy by which a human being can actually live because we do not and can not know what kinds of adversity, and in what amounts, would actually benefit us except in hindsight (if at all).

You put words into my mouth and this is what I am trying to get across. We don't know what adversity will face, and philosophy in general teaches that whatever comes, be prepared for it with the knowledge and wisdom granted to us by experience and education. It's not seeking adversity for adversity’s sake, but rather learning to accept that the unpredictability of negative externalities is a fact of life and overcoming the challenges thrown at us. Humans could not possibly foresee all sufferings and prevent those from happening. The best example is technology. As much as mass, instant digital media have eased our communications, this also led to an entirely different set of problems for humans, especially with fake news and mental health.

Philosophy teaches to be "better" in the sense of improving one's situation-- be it improving material conditions or well-being-- so long as it is within one's control. It teaches to be more pragmatic, which is where acknowledging reality comes in. One can recognise what is futile and what alternative options a person can take by being armed with both cognitive and meta-cognitive tools from what other philosophical thoughts can teach.

Achieving, or at least coming close to, a good life is paradoxical is what I am saying. It's not necessarily objective nor subjective. On the one hand, individuals have their own desires, understanding and definition of what a good life is. Then on the other hand, I think we can both agree that obsessing on social status and validation, chasing fleeting short-term pleasures, and not looking after the well-being of yourself and others do not constitute a good life. In my opinion, a good life needs to have wider net benefit for everyone's well-being-- that much is objective. But the approach on how to do so is very much subjective.

I kind of agree with you that an ideal life is probably with the minimum suffering, but it is a slippery slope because without it, that could include also avoiding adversity. There is no growth and maturation for the individual and society if there is no adversity. It is as integral to life as happiness and pleasure. If there is no adversity, how could one know what the latter is, and vice versa?

> The real practical value of philosophy comes not through focusing on the ‘ideal’ life, but through helping us deal with life’s inevitable suffering

Isn't this what philosophy in general teaches? I'm not familiar with other cultural philosophies like African and Latin American, but my understanding is that both Western and Eastern philosophies acknowledge the harsh reality of life and give prescription on how to live in harmony with that fact, while building a better life than at present. I don't see philosophy teaching how to live an "ideal life". Even then the notion is debatable because someone else has their own different definition and understanding on how to live life.