Finally, some logic that we can all agree upon.

[nolawitch58]

Does it all boil down to how much money mitigating the situation might cost? Frankly, if it was only a question of saving the human race, I'd be completely against the outlay of money. I don't want to encourage humanity's morbid fecundity any more than it already is encouraged. I think we owe the ghosts of the species that humans are directly responsible for driving to extinction an effort to prevent further extinctions.

What IS the worst that could happen if we took action? Surely it isn't the money being wasted that's driving the opposition. They aren't shrieking like banshees about the waste of money on bombs and bullets.

What if solar power provided 25% or more of our electricity needs? What if cars ran on hydrogen or biofuels? Would it put those companies who provide our current energy needs out of business? No. Would it cut into their profits? Probably. What would be wrong with finding a new business paradigm that perhaps didn't include obscene salaries for CEOs? Besides, other industries would spring up in their places. Are we so bereft of ideas that we can't envision anything better than what we have right now?

Comments

[kitten-goddess.livejournal.com]

"Are we so bereft of ideas that we can't envision anything better than what we have right now?"

Organized religion, with its emphasis on being content with what you have and being thankful in times of trouble instead of doing something about it, is partly responsible for this. Sheer human laziness, stupidity, and pessimism is responsible for the rest.

[snarl817.livejournal.com]

You just made my cynicism meter explode!



But no, I can't find a flaw in his logic either.

[wisedonkey.livejournal.com]

Does it all boil down to how much money mitigating the situation might cost?

When is it never about money?

[puts on horns to play the devil's advocate]

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

I can see two flaws of logic here.

The first is about odds. Why do we say that national lotteries are a tax on stupidity? Because it's stupid to waste money on something whose odds are very low. His argument is fine as long as the odds of catastrophe are relatively high: 1:100, 1:1000 etc. But what if the odds are 1:10,000,000,000? Do we still spend that money?

In comes religious fanatic A, stands on a soap box and says "We can't know whether Jesus Christ is coming back to deliver us and torture the sinners or not! That's a matter of row and we don't know which row is true! So what we should concentrate on is what we can do about it - which column to select! Let's select the column for Christianity - at worst, you've wasted your efforts and believed in the wrong faith. If you choose the column for heresy - you're doomed".

Hold on a second, isn't that Pascal's gamble all over again? And wasn't that disproved a million times already?

The second flaw is, of course, that not everybody sees the end result in the same way as we do. In steps religious fanatic B. Takes a look at column A and column B and says: "Why should I not want the end of the world to come? As soon as that happens, the Lord is going to snatch me up to cloud 9, where I'll have a ring-side seat together with my fellow good Christians, watching all the heretics and infidels enjoy the consequences of global warming. In fact, I should do everything I can to prevent the environmentalists from postponing that day!"

Re: [puts on horns to play the devil's advocate]

[kelli217.livejournal.com]

Well, Pascal's Wager is basically rhetoric dressed up as logic, anyway. Effective as a persuasive tool in many cases, but not necessarily syllogistically valid.

Logic.

[saminz.livejournal.com]

Right. But: Is this really "our" decision? This is about sustainability. The corporate business world is not about that at all. It's about the next dividend, basically. And who is it that "rules" our brave new globalized planet...?

Sorry about the cynicism.

It's a movingly nice try, anyway - and will hopefully educate some folks in pragmatic thinking.

Re: Logic.

[real-skeptic.livejournal.com]

As usual, you're too pessimistic. :)

The trend in the world right now is for corporates to show how "green" they are. That's because there is public pressure in that direction. Businesses follow trends. If people start buying "green" products and services, businesses will start making them.

So we do have a certain amount of clout - not only our political vote, but our consumer vote as well - in a much more frequent election.

Re: Logic.

[saminz.livejournal.com]

Allow me some skepticism here ;-).

The "green" ours support, for the time being, are these "emission-dealings". Period. The new technology tends to come out of the Unis, widely supported by tax money.

Yes, we do have that certain amount of impact, and I am doing my part, I guess. But, also as usual, I lack faith ;-).

[fakiiri.livejournal.com]

'What would be wrong with finding a new business paradigm that perhaps didn't include obscene salaries for CEOs?'

I think that what the music industry has done in its desperate attempt to protect its outlived business model shows how far people are willing to go with this. Unfortunately they have the money to do it as well.

I like the video a lot.

He needs a frying pan.

[jpaganel.livejournal.com]

The style is highly reminiscent of "This is your brain" commercials.

The first obvious flaw that I see with this is the assumption that a global economic depression is the only result of the expenditure. So, climate going to shit will cause war, but economy going to shit will not? And all this time I thought most wars were economic in nature...

Your whatifs also have flaws. First of all, every one of these "green" energy alternatives has it's own drawbacks. Solar panels have a toxic manufacturing process and require a large energy outlay to produce. Biofuels also need a lot of energy to produce, and so on. The energy producers are not idiots, and if there will be a demand for hydrogen, then the oil companies will start building hydrogen plants. Things will change for them, but not drastically. Plus, oil will always be valuable as a raw material for plastics and such. As a matter of fact, I think that would be a major factor in abandoning oil as fuel.

The other thing wrong with this is the assumption that nothing is changing. That is flat out wrong. For instance, thermal depolymerization (process that converts organic waste into high-grade oil) has promise of both ridding us of garbage and reducing the use of natural oil. This won't change things radically, but it is a great stopgap with added benefits. The biggest obstacle to electric cars and inconsistent energy sources like solar and wind power is our lack of decent batteries. I've read two or three articles just last week about work in that direction.

This ties in with defense spending. It's more than just bullets and bombs, the DOD funds a lot research. We wouldn't be having this discussion, were it not for DARPA, and you know what the D stands for, right? Well, I've also seen articles about various promising technologies that the army might want, like exoskeletons, and those things all need portable power. The military-funded research into power sources has potential to resolve this.

Basically, the sky is not falling. And even if it was, so what?