5 ms·
Individual animals in the wild die cruel, slow, painful deaths all the time, regardless of whether their species as a whole is thriving or not. So while this v
by eemax 9y ago
Individual animals in the wild die cruel, slow, painful deaths all the time, regardless of whether their species as a whole is thriving or not.
So while this video might evoke a strong emotional response, it is just an anecdote and not actually evidence one way or the other for human-caused climate change.
Of course, human-caused climate change is obviously real, but it's not OK to use bad arguments even if your conclusion is correct.
EDIT: To clarify further, I am not disputing that polar bears are not being harmed by climate change, or even that the particular bear in the video is not starving because of climate change. I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time.
- ant6n 9y ago> I am merely pointing out that one could produce a video of a starving polar bear both in our world and in the world where climate change is not happening, because wild animals starve all the time. Good thing most people already know we don't live in the world where climate change is not happening, so this doesn't need to act as proof of it happening, but rather as an individual example of what is happening all over.
- eemax 9y agoYes, this is probably effective propaganda, and moreover, propaganda for a just cause. Nonetheless it is not evidence for climate change, and moreover it is not even necessarily an example of the effects of climate change - even we 100% fix climate change, there will still be plenty of starving wild animals available for sad videos. The actual way to ensure there are no starving wild animals is to exterminate them in the wild. But that's probably not a good idea.
- b4lancesh33t 9y agoHas anyone in the linked article or in these comments tried to position this video as evidence of climate change? I don't see it if so.
- oconnor663 9y agoSure, it's in the original article. > By telling the story of one polar bear, Nicklen hopes to convey a larger message about how a warming climate has deadly consequences.
- lwall 9y agoNo. "Here's an example of the effects of climate change" is not the same thing as "this is proof of climate change"
- b4lancesh33t 9y agoI don't think the photographer would say that the polar bear should convince anyone that climate change is occurring. Instead, they assume that reasonable people are already convinced, and are trying to demonstrate a reason one should care.
- jackhack 9y ago"propaganda for a just cause" That's a troubling turn of phrase.
- taneq 9y agoBeing an animal is generally a terrible experience, so using an individual, terrible experience of an animal to make a political point seems disingenuous.
- ritchiea 9y agoWe need to use whatever arguments are effective to steer people and governments to good policy as long as we know those arguments are supporting a cause that is scientifically backed. Some people don't get and don't want to get scientific evidence. If there is a plausible causal chain from global climate change to that suffering polar bear we should be using that polar bear to convince people climate change is real and bad. Most people don't have the patience for or interest in scientific arguments and we have to convince most people that this is a problem not just hacker news.
- wbhart 9y agoThere is no way for the general public to distinguish between arguments presented in this way that are genuine, and ones that are pseudoscientific. It's never ok to knowingly present information which is unscientific, to achieve a political end. It can be discredited and may do more damage to the cause than good. In this particular case, polar bear populations are not observed to be in decline, so it's a poor argument to make, which can easily be discredited with real data.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ritchiea 9y agoI strongly disagree with you. There is research in social psychology showing it is difficult for most people to reason from technical, statistical arguments. One thing I have noticed reading political essays recently is that the emotional impact of scientific, technical and statistical arguments can be bolstered with fitting specific anecdotal evidence. Logic is often not enough to change people's views or motivate them to change. This applies to the most logically minded of us as well.
- chrischen 9y agoThat’s called propoganda. You advocate using propoganda to justify a cause you have predetermined to be scientifically backed. Why not just use the scientific backing directly?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- icc97 9y agoTangentially to this, I was wondering the rather simple question of - "Where do the old age ducks/birds go to die?". They mostly get eaten is the rather obvious answer [0]. [0]: http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-guides/ask-an-expert/previous/deadbirds.aspx http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/bird-and-wildlife-...