3 ms·
The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most.
by SiempreViernes 7y ago
The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago> The reasoning for the opposition is largely irrelevant to the question of which blocking actions harms our survival chances the most. It's not at all, because the reason for opposition is directly relevant to the question of which failures to address the reasons for opposition are, in fact, “blocking actions” that harm our survival the most. Perhaps more importantly, it's relevant to the fix instead of blame issue of which approached to address opposition are likely to be most fruitful in improving our survival chances. Which is, to me, the more important question: I'd rather human civilization survive than be able to efficiently place the blame for it's collapse.
- SiempreViernes 7y agoSure, but that was not the context of my statement and not a discussion I'm interested in having here. Also, (and this is the real reason for this reply) that was some pretty bad use of italics. You just made your text harder to read mate, and honestly I just skimmed it.
- manfredo 7y agoIt is highly relevant. Failure to understand the reasoning of the opposition makes it hard for those that do want to reduce emissions to gain office, which drastically reduces the ability to introduce changes to limit climate change.