4 ms·

The positive outcomes of using fossil fuels for generating energy have vastly outweighed the negatives, and will continue to do so. I acknowledge that my opini

by kodyo 4y ago

The positive outcomes of using fossil fuels for generating energy have vastly outweighed the negatives, and will continue to do so. I acknowledge that my opinion depends on a definition of "positive" that reflects my belief that we should make life better for humans.

forgetfulness 4y ago
Well I imagine you will lead a successful coup in your country to become a dictator and instate the wildly unpopular measures that will make life better for the human climate refugees, all those people displaced by faltering agricultural output, infrastructure damage and the resulting civil conflict as droughts become longer and weather phenomena more destructive, or temperatures render their places of living outright uninhabitable. Not on the table? Then maybe you should reconsider what that belief entails.
- kodyo 4y ago
  You're projecting. I have no desire to govern other people or in any way restrict their ability to do what they think is best for themselves. That's what climate alarmists do. Deaths from natural disasters have been dramatically decreasing for decades. The number of people we can feed on less land has been increasing for decades. The ability of humans to move resources from one place to another has been increasing for centuries. Some people choose to live in warm and dry places rather than cold and damp places. You discount the ability of the planet to respond to feedback and achieve balance, and the ability of humans to adapt. You don't even need international cabals of authoritarian collectivists to live a happy life.
  - forgetfulness 4y ago
    Would you prefer to keep them outside your borders or let them in if push comes to shove, and poor countries can't adapt? Or is suddenly "they are poor but happy" an acceptable imagined outcome for you, despite your belief that fossil fuels will keep ushering this era of prosperity so using them is morally the right choice?

by kodyo 4y ago

forgetfulness 4y ago

Well I imagine you will lead a successful coup in your country to become a dictator and instate the wildly unpopular measures that will make life better for the human climate refugees, all those people displaced by faltering agricultural output, infrastructure damage and the resulting civil conflict as droughts become longer and weather phenomena more destructive, or temperatures render their places of living outright uninhabitable. Not on the table? Then maybe you should reconsider what that belief entails.

kodyo 4y ago
You're projecting. I have no desire to govern other people or in any way restrict their ability to do what they think is best for themselves. That's what climate alarmists do. Deaths from natural disasters have been dramatically decreasing for decades. The number of people we can feed on less land has been increasing for decades. The ability of humans to move resources from one place to another has been increasing for centuries. Some people choose to live in warm and dry places rather than cold and damp places. You discount the ability of the planet to respond to feedback and achieve balance, and the ability of humans to adapt. You don't even need international cabals of authoritarian collectivists to live a happy life.
- forgetfulness 4y ago
  Would you prefer to keep them outside your borders or let them in if push comes to shove, and poor countries can't adapt? Or is suddenly "they are poor but happy" an acceptable imagined outcome for you, despite your belief that fossil fuels will keep ushering this era of prosperity so using them is morally the right choice?