3 ms·

> we have exactly zero historical precedent to know whether or not climate change will even be a 'net plus'. My point exactly! If you respect Chesterton's fenc

> we have exactly zero historical precedent to know whether or not climate change will even be a 'net plus'. My point exactly! If you respect Chesterton's fence, we shouldn't make radical changes to the status quo without clear and convincing proof that the change is worth the cost. Fossil fuels, as bad as they are, also brought up living standards for literally billions of people. There are still billions of people who have yet to enjoy Western standards of living. We shouldn't handicap their growth by demonizing fossil fuels before alternatives are ready.

vkou 3y ago
It takes incredible mental gymnastics, and a massive ideological blindspot to consider flooding our atmosphere with billions of tons of carbon, and causing a climate catastrophe to be 'the status quo'.
- gottorf 3y ago
  Status quo just means the world as it sits now. It has no bearing on whether it is an ideal state to be. Humanity is indubitably better off now than it was prior to the Industrial Revolution, and there's 10x more of us now to enjoy it, thanks in large part to energy unlocked by fossil fuels. Do you dispute that point, or is your point rather that we should go back to the living standards and world population of the 1700s? At the same time that we've been flooding the atmosphere with carbon with nations around the world industrializing (1970-2019), climate-related deaths around the world shrank to one-third, while the human population doubled[0]. Not one-third in rate, that's one-third in absolute number. Is that the "climate catastrophe" you're talking about? The IPCC released its first report in 1990, and deaths of climate has only decreased since then, mainly due to the improving ability of developing nations to better master their environment -- again, via cheap energy enabled by fossil fuels. I'm not the one with mental gymnastics and blind spots if you cannot acknowledge the instrumental role that fossil fuels have played in getting humanity to this point, and the inability of current renewable energy technology to replace it wholesale. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
  - vkou 3y ago
    By your definition, draining down your savings because your expenses far exceed your earnings is 'status quo'. A drug addict upping the dose they take every week, to maintain the same rush, until their heart finally gives out is 'status quo'. Continuing to push on the accelerator, as your car is on its way off a cliff is 'status quo'. You're also presenting a laughably false dichotomy for an alternative. I have an incredibly hard time imagining that you honestly believe that to be the only alternative for our current trajectory.

vkou 3y ago

It takes incredible mental gymnastics, and a massive ideological blindspot to consider flooding our atmosphere with billions of tons of carbon, and causing a climate catastrophe to be 'the status quo'.

gottorf 3y ago
Status quo just means the world as it sits now. It has no bearing on whether it is an ideal state to be. Humanity is indubitably better off now than it was prior to the Industrial Revolution, and there's 10x more of us now to enjoy it, thanks in large part to energy unlocked by fossil fuels. Do you dispute that point, or is your point rather that we should go back to the living standards and world population of the 1700s? At the same time that we've been flooding the atmosphere with carbon with nations around the world industrializing (1970-2019), climate-related deaths around the world shrank to one-third, while the human population doubled[0]. Not one-third in rate, that's one-third in absolute number. Is that the "climate catastrophe" you're talking about? The IPCC released its first report in 1990, and deaths of climate has only decreased since then, mainly due to the improving ability of developing nations to better master their environment -- again, via cheap energy enabled by fossil fuels. I'm not the one with mental gymnastics and blind spots if you cannot acknowledge the instrumental role that fossil fuels have played in getting humanity to this point, and the inability of current renewable energy technology to replace it wholesale. [0]: https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989 https://library.wmo.int/doc_num.php?explnum_id=10989
- vkou 3y ago
  By your definition, draining down your savings because your expenses far exceed your earnings is 'status quo'. A drug addict upping the dose they take every week, to maintain the same rush, until their heart finally gives out is 'status quo'. Continuing to push on the accelerator, as your car is on its way off a cliff is 'status quo'. You're also presenting a laughably false dichotomy for an alternative. I have an incredibly hard time imagining that you honestly believe that to be the only alternative for our current trajectory.