3 ms·

I agree but again then we are back to Pascals Wager. I consider meteor hit more dangerous and human flourishing more important than climate change for the reaso

I agree but again then we are back to Pascals Wager. I consider meteor hit more dangerous and human flourishing more important than climate change for the reasons I oulined.

polotics 8y ago
Adequating human flourishing with our current CO2 output, discounted at zero while the measurable ongoing and certain future costs mount up, is not fit for a hacker. Systems are real things, no matter what defending your entitlements demands. Good luck with the climate.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Is that what I wrote?
  - polotics 8y ago
    Close enough I think: setting up a false analogy between climates and meteors is an argument against action. Packaging this in seductive can-do arguments for the HN crowd does not change the reality of the global predicament (not problem) we are in. The maximum commitment to R&D and the belt tightening that are both not happening now would probably not be enough to avoid major global disruption.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      First of all. Its not a false analogy at all. Meteors have struck before and eradicated almost all life. Climate have been hotter than it is right now and didn't have the same effect. Second of all I didn't mention anything about not doing anything I specifically have stated the opposite. The fact that you will straight out lie about what I said shows your true colors. Have a good day.
Retric 8y ago
Risk is dependent on probability not just outcome. The odds of a major asteroid hitting in the next 50 years is under 1 in 1,000,000 so it's not worth spending much effort preventing. Climate change is close to 100% certain so it's worth spending vastly more effort preventing relative to the downsides. Really though, I am talking about spending well under 1/1,000th US GDP. So, that's worth it even if climate change is bad, but not devastating.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  The risk of a large amount of humans dying from not being prosperous enough to care for themselves every year the next 100 years is 100% if there is not enough growth. You are welcome to isolate this discussion if thats what you need, but to convince me at least you will need show a much broader perspective here and care not just for nature and the people that might be here in the future but also those who are here right now. I am less worried about climate change than of many other things including a major or even fairly large meteor.
  - Retric 8y ago
    Do you think Climate Change is somehow going to help these people? Because it's also going to directly kill a lot of people in absolute terms. The technology is here, using current levels of fossil fuels is not going to aid global GDP. It's really more a question of which groups end up with the proceeds and many very wealthy people would be worse off if oil fields become worthless. That's the push-back on this issue. PS: It's not even a jobs issue, there are only 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US. It's all about infrastructure and owning existing resources.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      I think that denying them access to cheap and reliable fuel such as fossil fuels isn't going to allow them to deal with the climate change thats happening no matter what we do. So I think you have it backward.
      - 8y ago

I agree but again then we are back to Pascals Wager. I consider meteor hit more dangerous and human flourishing more important than climate change for the reasons I oulined.

polotics 8y ago

Adequating human flourishing with our current CO2 output, discounted at zero while the measurable ongoing and certain future costs mount up, is not fit for a hacker. Systems are real things, no matter what defending your entitlements demands. Good luck with the climate.

ThomPete 8y ago
Is that what I wrote?
- polotics 8y ago
  Close enough I think: setting up a false analogy between climates and meteors is an argument against action. Packaging this in seductive can-do arguments for the HN crowd does not change the reality of the global predicament (not problem) we are in. The maximum commitment to R&D and the belt tightening that are both not happening now would probably not be enough to avoid major global disruption.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    First of all. Its not a false analogy at all. Meteors have struck before and eradicated almost all life. Climate have been hotter than it is right now and didn't have the same effect. Second of all I didn't mention anything about not doing anything I specifically have stated the opposite. The fact that you will straight out lie about what I said shows your true colors. Have a good day.

Retric 8y ago

Risk is dependent on probability not just outcome. The odds of a major asteroid hitting in the next 50 years is under 1 in 1,000,000 so it's not worth spending much effort preventing. Climate change is close to 100% certain so it's worth spending vastly more effort preventing relative to the downsides. Really though, I am talking about spending well under 1/1,000th US GDP. So, that's worth it even if climate change is bad, but not devastating.

ThomPete 8y ago
The risk of a large amount of humans dying from not being prosperous enough to care for themselves every year the next 100 years is 100% if there is not enough growth. You are welcome to isolate this discussion if thats what you need, but to convince me at least you will need show a much broader perspective here and care not just for nature and the people that might be here in the future but also those who are here right now. I am less worried about climate change than of many other things including a major or even fairly large meteor.
- Retric 8y ago
  Do you think Climate Change is somehow going to help these people? Because it's also going to directly kill a lot of people in absolute terms. The technology is here, using current levels of fossil fuels is not going to aid global GDP. It's really more a question of which groups end up with the proceeds and many very wealthy people would be worse off if oil fields become worthless. That's the push-back on this issue. PS: It's not even a jobs issue, there are only 50,000 coal mining jobs in the US. It's all about infrastructure and owning existing resources.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    I think that denying them access to cheap and reliable fuel such as fossil fuels isn't going to allow them to deal with the climate change thats happening no matter what we do. So I think you have it backward.
    - 8y ago