3 ms·

> You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evi

by proc0 5y ago

> You can find plenty to debate within the science, by addressing the evidence. I note that none of the denialist arguments, including this one, discuss any evidence. Right, but this is more of meta-conversation. I'm not going to go into the evidence here, we're a talking about the climate change conversation itself. I can assure there is evidence on both sides. The problem is that it quickly becomes an epistemological conversation on what constitutes as evidence. I can see good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. This of course benefits the ruling class, so it is no surprise those at the "bottom" push back against it. If instead we could see some leadership by example, I think Tesla has done well here, we could see less pushback. There's nothing wrong with green tech, but forcing it on society is dancing around the totalitarian utopia idea. > What happens when there is a catastrophe? Bad things happen. Yes, but the same corporations are not solving world hunger, yet are promoting a carbon tax and vaccines. More people die from hunger (almost 10M every year for decades) than covid as one example, even if we had done nothing about it. Glaciers haven't even melted yet, but obesity kills millions... at the same time hunger kills millions EVERY YEAR, yet climate change is a bigger problem... how does that make sense?

wolverine876 5y ago
Glaciers have melted, but regardless, the math seems straightforward: Climate change will cause orders of magnitude more damage than obesity. Also, we do invest in reducing obesity, hunger, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, childhood death, etc. > good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. Only if we redefine "totalitarian". We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. That's what every law is - we get together and agree on rules for everyone. This argument is typical of reactionary rhetoric - complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies.
- proc0 5y ago
  > We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. Every one of these has immediate consequences. How many laws exist that are about consequences in the mid to far future? Immediate consequences are obvious, but far future consequences are highly debatable especially considering we don't know what tech will exist in the future. > complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies. Why not put the responsibilities on corporations? They're the ones doing the most pollution on almost every scale. People just buy/use what is available. Individual action isn't even needed, only corporate action, and they seem to be the ones pushing for political changes the most. It should be a battle fought at the large corporation levels, and if they just remove services and provide new ones, there's nothing the average person can do. Instead we see them funding political movements that would result in corporations having more control over the individual at the population scale. Meanwhile they have virtually zero accountability from government. My point here, is that it shouldn't matter what people believe. Maybe scientists should push for corporations to change, and for government to hold them accountable for things they have already done. This would have nothing to do with believing the science.

by proc0 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

Glaciers have melted, but regardless, the math seems straightforward: Climate change will cause orders of magnitude more damage than obesity. Also, we do invest in reducing obesity, hunger, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, childhood death, etc. > good arguments on both sides, yet there is more political action on one side only with increasing pressure to control how entire populations should live their daily lives that seem to approach totalitarian levels. Only if we redefine "totalitarian". We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. That's what every law is - we get together and agree on rules for everyone. This argument is typical of reactionary rhetoric - complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies.

proc0 5y ago
> We have all sorts of laws that "control how entire populations should live" - they can't steal; they have to drive on the proper side of the road, not too fast, and stop in certain places; they can only put their trash out on certain days of the week. Every one of these has immediate consequences. How many laws exist that are about consequences in the mid to far future? Immediate consequences are obvious, but far future consequences are highly debatable especially considering we don't know what tech will exist in the future. > complete nonsense if you think for a moment, it's really about aggression to confound the 'enemy'. You've made your fellow citizens, other human beings, into enemies. Why not put the responsibilities on corporations? They're the ones doing the most pollution on almost every scale. People just buy/use what is available. Individual action isn't even needed, only corporate action, and they seem to be the ones pushing for political changes the most. It should be a battle fought at the large corporation levels, and if they just remove services and provide new ones, there's nothing the average person can do. Instead we see them funding political movements that would result in corporations having more control over the individual at the population scale. Meanwhile they have virtually zero accountability from government. My point here, is that it shouldn't matter what people believe. Maybe scientists should push for corporations to change, and for government to hold them accountable for things they have already done. This would have nothing to do with believing the science.