4 ms·

Well, if you accept that humans are a major cause of global warming, the equation becomes pretty simple: Limit human behavior or limit the number of humans. B

Well, if you accept that humans are a major cause of global warming, the equation becomes pretty simple: Limit human behavior or limit the number of humans. Both have scary ramifications.

yongjik 11y ago
Humans were a major cause of acid rain and the ozone hole. We more or less solved these problems, by "limiting human behavior", and most people didn't even notice. I don't see why people should be so scared by more solar (or even nuclear) plants.
sanderjd 11y ago
Even if you don't accept that humans are a major cause of climate change, but you do accept that it is happening, will have disastrous consequences for human survival, and can be mitigated through human action, the equation becomes simple. The "can be mitigated through human action" seems to get tied up in, "humans are a major cause", but they aren't actually the same thing. Instead of the backwards-looking "you did this" slap on the wrist, we should be selling the aspirational "you can help solve this" call to action.
m_fayer 11y ago
The idea that limiting human behavior is a scary concept makes no sense to me. We limit human behavior all the time because resources are finite and because the immediate interests of the individual may be detrimental to wider society. It's called rule of law.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  In living memory, "rule of law" has included the holocaust, gulags, forced sterilization of the handicapped, forced abortion, police brutality directed against minorities, and various other forms of tyranny and injustice. Many times those things are described by the government as "in the best interests of the people". Those are the associations some people have with the line "limiting human behavior". Of course that's a rather one-sided presentation -- I've left out positive things like "ending slavery" -- but the point is to demonstrate where the fear comes from.
  - m_fayer 11y ago
    While I understand the impulse, IMO these people have learned the wrong lesson. The correct takeaway is not some anarchic version of "maximalist liberty above all else," but rather "correct" rule of law. In many of the examples you list, there is either an absence of liberal constitutional authority, or corruption of it. The path to the holocaust was paved by the dismantlement of liberal democracy and democratic safeguards. Slavery and subsequent civil rights abuses in the US were made possible by either punching holes in the legal order (3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, etc), ignoring it entirely, or perpetrating the abuses in secret. To me, then, tyranny and injustice can be forestalled not by tearing down the power of the state and creating chaotic power vacuums, but by vigorously defending transparency, an independent judiciary, an independent press, and all the other legs on which the liberal order stands.
    - lotharbot 11y ago
      I completely agree. However, the point still remains that "handing over more power to the government" is a thing people have legitimate reason to fear. Particularly in an era where there's so much concern over the judiciary (from Roe v Wade to Citizens United, everyone has something they think SCOTUS screwed up badly) and the independent press (not asking the tough questions pre-Iraq war, seemingly giving Obama a pass on various scandals) and government transparency (Snowden leaks, Guantanamo, Benghazi). So the things that we need in order to trust the government with more power aren't as strong as many people feel they should be. Simultaneously, the government has a track record of trying to change peoples' behavior in both above-board and behind-the-scenes ways, through everything from tax policy (mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership) to astroturfing (infiltration of various dissident groups, including those devoted to non-violence) to draconian drug laws (leading to disproportionate imprisonment of black men) and requiring people to purchase certain forms of health insurance. It's against this backdrop that "the government wants to limit our behavior" is often evaluated. Even in areas where it actually makes a lot of sense -- like pricing externalities into carbon emissions via taxes -- it's worth asking whether the government is reaching farther than they should in order to accomplish something more than what's been publicly stated.

Well, if you accept that humans are a major cause of global warming, the equation becomes pretty simple: Limit human behavior or limit the number of humans. Both have scary ramifications.

yongjik 11y ago

Humans were a major cause of acid rain and the ozone hole. We more or less solved these problems, by "limiting human behavior", and most people didn't even notice. I don't see why people should be so scared by more solar (or even nuclear) plants.

sanderjd 11y ago

Even if you don't accept that humans are a major cause of climate change, but you do accept that it is happening, will have disastrous consequences for human survival, and can be mitigated through human action, the equation becomes simple. The "can be mitigated through human action" seems to get tied up in, "humans are a major cause", but they aren't actually the same thing. Instead of the backwards-looking "you did this" slap on the wrist, we should be selling the aspirational "you can help solve this" call to action.

m_fayer 11y ago

The idea that limiting human behavior is a scary concept makes no sense to me. We limit human behavior all the time because resources are finite and because the immediate interests of the individual may be detrimental to wider society. It's called rule of law.

lotharbot 11y ago
In living memory, "rule of law" has included the holocaust, gulags, forced sterilization of the handicapped, forced abortion, police brutality directed against minorities, and various other forms of tyranny and injustice. Many times those things are described by the government as "in the best interests of the people". Those are the associations some people have with the line "limiting human behavior". Of course that's a rather one-sided presentation -- I've left out positive things like "ending slavery" -- but the point is to demonstrate where the fear comes from.
- m_fayer 11y ago
  While I understand the impulse, IMO these people have learned the wrong lesson. The correct takeaway is not some anarchic version of "maximalist liberty above all else," but rather "correct" rule of law. In many of the examples you list, there is either an absence of liberal constitutional authority, or corruption of it. The path to the holocaust was paved by the dismantlement of liberal democracy and democratic safeguards. Slavery and subsequent civil rights abuses in the US were made possible by either punching holes in the legal order (3/5 compromise, Jim Crow, etc), ignoring it entirely, or perpetrating the abuses in secret. To me, then, tyranny and injustice can be forestalled not by tearing down the power of the state and creating chaotic power vacuums, but by vigorously defending transparency, an independent judiciary, an independent press, and all the other legs on which the liberal order stands.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    I completely agree. However, the point still remains that "handing over more power to the government" is a thing people have legitimate reason to fear. Particularly in an era where there's so much concern over the judiciary (from Roe v Wade to Citizens United, everyone has something they think SCOTUS screwed up badly) and the independent press (not asking the tough questions pre-Iraq war, seemingly giving Obama a pass on various scandals) and government transparency (Snowden leaks, Guantanamo, Benghazi). So the things that we need in order to trust the government with more power aren't as strong as many people feel they should be. Simultaneously, the government has a track record of trying to change peoples' behavior in both above-board and behind-the-scenes ways, through everything from tax policy (mortgage interest deduction to encourage home ownership) to astroturfing (infiltration of various dissident groups, including those devoted to non-violence) to draconian drug laws (leading to disproportionate imprisonment of black men) and requiring people to purchase certain forms of health insurance. It's against this backdrop that "the government wants to limit our behavior" is often evaluated. Even in areas where it actually makes a lot of sense -- like pricing externalities into carbon emissions via taxes -- it's worth asking whether the government is reaching farther than they should in order to accomplish something more than what's been publicly stated.