> 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 i

> 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.