5 ms·
It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be
by suby 3y ago
It's a panic because we have blanketed the world and exposed the entire population to synthetic chemicals which we do not understand the effects of. It could be fine, but it could be the cause of a large increase in terrible diseases and suffering in the future. It's the not knowing which makes things worse.
- polski-g 3y agoIt's probably the cause of the fertility crash. Even theocratic Iran is now below replacement.
- civilized 3y agoI think we should try to believe things because they are true, not because they reinforce our sense of feeling bad about ourselves for contaminating the environment with industrial processes.
- suby 3y agoHere is something that I believe to be true -- it is bad to contaminate the environment with industrial processes when we do not understand the consequences of said contamination. It isn't about feeling, it is about rolling the dice with the future of everyone's health, and inadequate steps being taken to stop this process.
- civilized 3y agoI agree, like I said I am philosophically opposed to this contamination as much as anyone else.
- matthewdgreen 3y agoIt's not about philosophical opposition. It's about applying correct cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty. When the harms of a substance are uncertain, the rational analysis actually requires you to assume a wider distribution of risk, and thus calculate a higher potential cost. That's why insurance companies can charge lower premiums when they have lots of data about a particular form of payout, and higher premiums when they have less data: uncertainty adds cost. For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. It's a reflection of the same miscalculation that makes running a casino extremely profitable.
- civilized 3y agoI agree with all that. If you have the idea that philosophy is irrelevant cloud-talk, that is not my intention or usage of the term. To me it's about the principles you bring to a topic, including principles of risk and cost-benefit analysis. I think we should be transparent as to the reasons why we're going after this risk. If we don't know very much but feel the potential implications are sufficiently grave, let's be honest about that. Rather than latching onto alarming but potentially low-quality studies as providing us the truth, which leads to whiplash, loss of scientific credibility, and polarization, as we've seen during the COVID pandemic.
- borissk 3y ago>> For some reason humans have a weird, irrational quirk where they miscalculate uncertain risks by assuming that the outcomes will fall on one side of the distribution until it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that they won't. And this quirk may be the end of us - e.g. don't react to AIs getting smarter and smarter until it's too late to do anything.
- waldothedog 3y agoI had the same thought as the reply-er above. You’ve given the impression that principles are not appropriate to act on. Notice the difference in removing the word “philosophically” from your response.
- civilized 3y agoI don't notice any difference, nor do I accept that I have given such an impression objectively, although I regret that some many have gotten that impression from their standpoint. I merely think we should separate our principled opposition to contamination from our assessment of what we actually know scientifically about the effects of said contamination.
- edgyquant 3y agoYou actually said the exact opposite of that
- civilized 3y agoI did not. Feel free to peruse the other replies in this thread to see what I actually say. I'm talking about the difference between epistemology and prudence. We can be honest that we don't really understand the risks of these chemicals, and at the same time take prudential action to mitigate the risks we don't know about.
- politician 3y agoWe use water for processes other than residential drinking water. Eventually, PFAS contamination will reach a level where additional filtering will be required to prepare water for industrial uses. Given the difficulty of removing PFAS, it's likely that this filtering will come at a high cost. These higher costs will be propagated through the economy. I, for one, don't want to pay these costs.
- edgyquant 3y agoI think that just throwing chemicals out and assuming they’re okay unless (and until) we can prove otherwise is obviously negligent and no intelligent person would believe there wouldn’t be a price to pay in human lives for at least some of them.
- triceratops 3y agoI don't feel bad about myself. I didn't contaminate the environment with industrial processes.
- anonuser123456 3y agoRisk is probabilistic. Tail risks with extremely high costs are important to manage.