3 ms·

I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. If every Christian decided

I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. If every Christian decided to not have kids tomorrow the world would be mostly Muslim and Hindu within a few decades. The few converts to Christianity would not replace the losses. Same with Climate Change. If the only culture that reproduces is climate deniers, the they will be the majority. In democracies majorities win. I'm not saying you or anyone else should have kids out of some sense of duty. If you don't want kids, fine. People having kids they didn't want has led to a lot of messed up families. However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. It's like if during the black death people said they're not having kids because it's morally correct to not produce more plague carriers. As for your voting analogy, under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner. If fewer people vote strategically then those who vote strategically win, however small a minority they might be. That's how we ended up with a two party system. Alliances willing to compromise parts of their values will defeat smaller but pure adversaries.

js8 6y ago
> I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. I think for my argument it doesn't matter whether the inheritance of the denialist position happens through biological or cultural means. Either way, what you're assuming is that by and large people cannot change their position (from the position of their parents) based on the situation they will find themselves in, that they cannot adapt culturally (i.e. they can only adapt via natural selection). > However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. Maybe it is. How can anyone know? I don't think it changes anything in the debate, if it's just a rationalization of something else. Maybe your belief that it is a post-hoc rationalization is a rationalization of something as well. > under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner Saying "some good might occur" is equivalent of "some bad might occur", which was my point. Your (not mine) U.S. voting system is horrible, you should push for changing it into something more sane. But regardless, I think what I wrote is true for most voting systems.

js8 6y ago

> I'm not assuming climate denial is genetic at all, parents and cultures have a great deal of influence on their children's beliefs. I think for my argument it doesn't matter whether the inheritance of the denialist position happens through biological or cultural means. Either way, what you're assuming is that by and large people cannot change their position (from the position of their parents) based on the situation they will find themselves in, that they cannot adapt culturally (i.e. they can only adapt via natural selection). > However I find the argument that it's because of climate change to be a post-hoc rationalization. Maybe it is. How can anyone know? I don't think it changes anything in the debate, if it's just a rationalization of something else. Maybe your belief that it is a post-hoc rationalization is a rationalization of something as well. > under our current system (in the US) if everyone votes strategically some good might occur albeit in a somewhat corrupt, half-assed manner Saying "some good might occur" is equivalent of "some bad might occur", which was my point. Your (not mine) U.S. voting system is horrible, you should push for changing it into something more sane. But regardless, I think what I wrote is true for most voting systems.