4 ms·
> No one is inventing posteriori arguments and decides arbitrary what is good and what is bad, one environmental change can drastically affect human civilizatio
by oneloop 10y ago
> No one is inventing posteriori arguments and decides arbitrary what is good and what is bad, one environmental change can drastically affect human civilization including costing human lives in the long run
You completely nailed it. First you say that no one is inventing posteriori arguments, and then you go on to say that "changes can have effects". But, but non-changes can also cost human lives in the long run. However, you CHOOSE to defend non-changes under the (in my view, irrational) belief that the changes might cause loss of lives, even though you are perfectly content with the consequences of the non-changes, which might also cause loss of lives in the long run. Example: "if we had fewer deserts, we would have more arable land, and so food would be cheaper, and so fewer lives would be lost". So we have one argument that says that changing might cause loss of lives and another one that says that not changing might cause loss of lives. Why do you always pick the non-changing? (when I say "you" in the previous phrase, I'm referring to people who call themselves environmentalists, who always make the argument that change might cause loss of lives, and never the opposite, not you personally).
- dogma1138 10y agoI don't know how simpler I can make it. Desertification can cost us anywhere between 25 to over 50% of the global arable land over the next 50-75 years. The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives, if only by denying future generation from being able to visit them. We gain nothing from destroying them in the long run, many of them even if they are deserts can be natural barriers to desertification, and again there is no dichotomy in this case I'm really having hard time trying to uncover any argument you might be attempting to make.
- oneloop 10y ago> The destruction of natural habitats can also have a negative effect on human lives Simple question: do you concede that in some cases keeping the natural habitats as they are might be worse than changing them, in terms of loss of life over the long run? If I can't get a yes or no on this, I don't think there's much point in continuing the conversation.
- dogma1138 10y agoIt depends, if it's the last liveable place on the planet and our species survival depends on it it's a no brainer. If it's to make some grapes so Canada can make more shitty wine while causing irreversible damage to the local wildlife and causing even worse desertification and other environmental changes in the future then no. There is no black and white, yes and no, good or bad, I don't understand why you are continuing to form these dycohomotic arguments I honestly suspect you are simply trolling at this point.
- oneloop 10y agoThe question of "are there any circumstances under which ..." is dichotomy. The circumstances either can conceivably exist, or it cannot. And I still haven't gotten an answer from you, so I guess there's no point continuing. No, I'm not trolling.
- dogma1138 10y agoIt's an utterly pointless question, it's like asking can something happen that you could never predict? this is pretty quasi rhetorical question which has absolutely no value or argument behind it. Yes by not destroying some natural habitat and causing the white tailed ferret to go extinct humans might bring their own extinction because in 3048 they are going to become the natural carriers of the Z virus bringing the oh so anticipated zombie apocalypse. But meantime in the real world from what we know so far from both research and experience negatively affecting the environment causes negative effects on the human civilization.