3 ms·
This is a mild example of a type of argument that I like to call "destructionist": to save something, destroy it as fast as possible so we have to deal with the
by ajkjk 6y ago
This is a mild example of a type of argument that I like to call "destructionist": to save something, destroy it as fast as possible so we have to deal with the consequences sooner. I've seen it applied to climate change: save the earth by ruining it!
It's fallacious, though. If you can save it later, you can save it sooner, and if it's worth saving at all, sooner is better. It's not an argument for a _solution_, it's an argument for _finding the will to implement the solution_ -- and it's the "minimally moral" argument for that. "Rather than do anything that takes moral strength, just make the problem worse and let other people deal with it!" The only worse stance is to no longer want a solution at all!
Of course it does seem like the real problem isn't figuring out what to do, but convincing people to care enough to do it. But our collective human intellect ought be able to do better than this.
- jillesvangurp 6y agoIt's an economic argument; you are making a moralistic argument. Economics have achieved more in the last five years than decades of moral outrage over climate change. I'm simply stating that increased demand for energy is currently being met (almost exclusively) through clean energy. Speeding that process up through more demand (which we have anyway) also speeds up the process of shutting down dirty capacity. This is why coal is rapidly disappearing from most countries still operating coal plants. Unthinkable ten years ago, and yet nearly completed in some countries right now. Even the US is on a clear path to probably be completely coal free very soon. The problem is not the demand but the dirty and expensive supply. I'm simply arguing to fix the supply problem by flooding the market with clean alternatives. The fastest way to do that is simply increase demand.