3 ms·

Given that there is an immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries, it's hard (and even, in my opinion, unwise) to not ascribe ill motives to

Given that there is an immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries, it's hard (and even, in my opinion, unwise) to not ascribe ill motives to those who start such lies. When it comes to climate change, the denialists have spent so much time, effort and money on propagating patent falsehoods that I think we are completely justified in saying that we have applied Hanlon's razor [1], but that the falsehoods we are now seeing take root cannot be ascribed to stupidity alone. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Mz 17y ago
I'm sorry, I don't see it that way, even given "conflict of interest" or whatever else you might want to call it. It looks to me like the immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries is basically a survival/self-preservation issue. And so is trying to clean up the environment so the species as a whole can survive. It generally does not help to disregard the short-term survival needs of the people you are arguing with and leap straight to an assumption of "malice", which assumes they actively want to hurt people. Willingness to disregard the welfare of others (or downplay long-term negative consequences out of fear of the short-term consequences) because one has a compelling survival issue is not the same thing as malice. I also believe firmly that in many cases they really just don't see a problem, at least not one compelling enough to embrace/justify the kind of "radical" positions that the opposition takes. I live without a car. In online forums where I talk about my choice to live without a car, it sometimes gets very freaked out reactions from people. People who are in no position to give up their car find my views and my choices very personally threatening. I see no reason to vilify them for such feelings and every reason to do all in my power to not vilify them. In most conflicts, both sides feel the other side "started it". In many cases, no one intentionally started anything. The friction that exists is very often inherent to the circumstance and not indicative of human evil.

Mz 17y ago

I'm sorry, I don't see it that way, even given "conflict of interest" or whatever else you might want to call it. It looks to me like the immense amount of money involved in the fossil fuel industries is basically a survival/self-preservation issue. And so is trying to clean up the environment so the species as a whole can survive. It generally does not help to disregard the short-term survival needs of the people you are arguing with and leap straight to an assumption of "malice", which assumes they actively want to hurt people. Willingness to disregard the welfare of others (or downplay long-term negative consequences out of fear of the short-term consequences) because one has a compelling survival issue is not the same thing as malice. I also believe firmly that in many cases they really just don't see a problem, at least not one compelling enough to embrace/justify the kind of "radical" positions that the opposition takes. I live without a car. In online forums where I talk about my choice to live without a car, it sometimes gets very freaked out reactions from people. People who are in no position to give up their car find my views and my choices very personally threatening. I see no reason to vilify them for such feelings and every reason to do all in my power to not vilify them. In most conflicts, both sides feel the other side "started it". In many cases, no one intentionally started anything. The friction that exists is very often inherent to the circumstance and not indicative of human evil.