4 ms·
My objection is that we as humans don't have the right to dictate what temperature the world is set at. Even if it's more economically beneficial for us to not
by imp 18y ago
My objection is that we as humans don't have the right to dictate what temperature the world is set at. Even if it's more economically beneficial for us to not change our behaviors, it's arrogant to think that our species is the only important one.
I haven't ready the fine details of the economic analysis they've done, but I don't think that they have (or are able to) calculate the effects that warmer global temperatures will have on all species on all parts of the earth. If they have gone into that much detail and still found it more beneficial to let temperatures rise then I wouldn't have an objection.
- Prrometheus 18y agoI think they would calculate the cost of losing a particular species by considering its direct and indirect value to humans. If you think that other species have intrinsic rights and value outside of what uses humans have for them ("uses" includes looking at and enjoying them), then the analysis will not be relevant to you. Neither will most other political/economic calculations made in consideration of almost any other topic.