3 ms·
You are making a dicotomy falacy with more than two options: it's either "quality of life + smog" or "being poor + clean air". There are two more options: "bein
by otherme123 3y ago
You are making a dicotomy falacy with more than two options: it's either "quality of life + smog" or "being poor + clean air". There are two more options: "being poor + smog" and "quality of life + clean air".
Some 50 years ago there was no option to coal as the first source of (cheap) energy. Today you can go straight to solar and wind as a cheap energy source, unless you live on a massive oil/gas/coal field, and that's the choice of "quality of life + clean air" you dismissed.
- pif 3y ago> dicotomy falacy Not at all. I'm not stating that smog is fine. I'm only stating the obvious: overall quality of life is more important than smog. It's obvious, too, that no smog can increase quality of life, depending on the associated costs.