3 ms·
> If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm? Yes, completely agree
by seneca 5y ago
> If there is no conclusive evidence towards either side, then why not choose the side more likely to protect humanity from further harm?
Yes, completely agreed! Now we just have to figure out which side that is.
Put another way, you'll go a long way towards wisdom when you realize both sides of most arguments believe they are arguing for what is genuinely the best option, including what will protect humanity.
I'm not a client change denier, but it's silly to argue "why don't you just do what is clearly right?" in pretty much any disagreement.
- jacquesm 5y agoThat's trivial: check which side is lining their pockets, then choose the other.
- Apes 5y agoAh, the ol' "a perfect world is one where I pull everyone down to my level" logic.
- bdamm 5y agoWhich side is that, exactly? On one hand we have big oil and pretty much every industrial polluter globally, and on the other hand we have academia which "lines their pockets" by finding ever more questions that need answering, and stoking fear of social or environmental collapse to generate those questions. Now, I personally know which side I trust more. However, if the lens is "who is lining their pockets" well, I am not sure that's really enough.
- manmal 5y agoWhen it comes to climate change, I‘m not trying to gain wisdom, but lobby for a world that is livable for the foreseeable future. That’s a purely political endeavor. Of course I could be wrong.