3 ms·
> Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though. Do you think? In the case of Syria, for example, we're talking about 500 t
by Udik 7y ago
> Yeah fine, that's a debate to be had, it shouldn't be coloured by morality though.
Do you think? In the case of Syria, for example, we're talking about 500 thousand deaths, millions displaced, a country in ruins. It's a disaster of gigantic proportions. And we made so many wrong choices before and during the conflict (first and foremost those of invading two neighbouring countries seeding chaos and fanaticism, then of siding against the regime at all costs, arming the rebels and prolonging the war) that could have made an enormous difference. But no, we wonder if it was the climate- the most indirect of all our possible responsibilities.
Sometimes I feel we're some sort of street hooligans à la Clockwork Orange beating up homeless people in the streets, and then seriously wondering if it's the fault of capitalism.
- benj111 7y agoIf the question is, what caused the Arab Spring? We can have a well reasoned debate with evidence and statistics and possibly say with some certainty whether or not climate change was a factor. There is no moral component in there. I don't like Hitler, I'm not going to blame him, unless the evidence leads there. I like puppies, if the evidence points to puppies then I'm not going to reject that just because I like puppies If the question is, what should we do about the causes of the Arab Spring? That is a question with a moral component. We can disagree about whether addressing climate change should be a part of the solution, just like we can disagree whether we should be murdering all the puppies, we should really be on the same page about whether puppies are the problem before making that decision though. You mention making wrong choices, starting with incorrect assumptions isnt going to help make the correct choices.