5 ms·

As a general rule I do not listen to people who fly hundreds of thousands of miles per year in private jets while suggesting that others sacrifice.

CptFribble 3y ago
it's more complicated than that because of the scale of human society. example: mandatory LED light bulbs. any individual person considering only themselves, would be correct to choose filament over LED because of cost and very little electricity savings. However, every light socket in the country switching to LED in aggregate represents a significant amount of energy savings for power plants and therefore less carbon output. this is a basic complication. going one level deeper, there is the supply chain of LEDs vs filament bulbs and the relative impact of their carbon footprints and mining of rare earth minerals. This is where it starts getting difficult to parse which is a net gain for the planet. another level below that is what you cite, the costs associated with the transition itself. A lot of energy (both electrical and human) is wasted by both supporters and detractors arguing in the public sphere, spending entire global broadcasts on the subject, flying around in private jets, etc. How much of this is necessary depends on the net savings from the first two levels, which is pretty hard to calculate accurately. So you do you, but personally I try not to commit to blanket statements that erase all nuance and subtlety - generally that leads to missing important context.
- Dig1t 3y ago
  LED bulbs are naturally way better. People install them in their house because they last longer and a simple calculation tells you that they are a better value. Also they are safer because of reduced operating heat. The government doesn’t need to force people to use green technologies, they are usually better. Lawn care products are a good example as well. Gas powered mowers, edgers, blowers etc are being phased out because their electric counterparts are simpler, quieter, and cheaper. Not because the government forces people to use them. A first principles understanding would suggest that more efficient technologies will win in the market usually because of reduced cost. The same is happening with cars as more companies invest and scale up their technology. Government incentives are accelerating this of course, which is good.
  - hulitu 3y ago
    > LED bulbs are naturally way better. People install them in their house because they last longer and a simple calculation tells you that they are a better value In theory, yes. In practice, they just seem to be more expensive. It is amazing how the luminous intensity of an LED bulb can decrease over time.
  - DontchaKnowit 3y ago
    What? LED bulbs suck. They are more expensive, produce poorer quality light, they often flicker, and they often take like 8 seconds to light up. Any consumer would choose flourescent given the chouxe in a vacuum
GeoAtreides 3y ago
As a general rule, I do listen to experts in fields in which I myself am not an expert. This rule is extremely useful, for example I am in good health thanks to listening to doctors; I also save so much time by trusting the civil engineers who built the bridges or tunnels I pass, instead of doing my own calculations, or trusting the aviation engineers who designed the planes I sometimes fly. I think I would be unable to function in the modern society if I wouldn't trust experts (in their fields).
- vivekd 3y ago
  I think experts are given credence because they can do a deep analysis. I expect a civil engineer to do calculations instead of just saying "I'm the expert trust me" Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims. You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said
  - GeoAtreides 3y ago
    When I say that we should trust the experts/scientists, I don't mean trust or belief in the same you would trust a priest or a guru or your parents when you're little. Experts should be trusted in their fields because other experts in those fields trust them, and they trust them because they published and they studied and they prove they understand their field. It's not appeal to authority when I go to Einstein and ask about quantum mechanics and then reference his answer that light manifest a wave-particle duality; he is after all an worldwide recognised expert in quantum mechanics. But! If I were to ask him about whether abortion and then say: Abortion is so and so because Einstein says it's so and so and he's worldwide recognised expert -- that is appeal to authority.
hulitu 3y ago
As a general rule, they don't preach to other people. They just pay other people to do it.

CptFribble 3y ago

it's more complicated than that because of the scale of human society. example: mandatory LED light bulbs. any individual person considering only themselves, would be correct to choose filament over LED because of cost and very little electricity savings. However, every light socket in the country switching to LED in aggregate represents a significant amount of energy savings for power plants and therefore less carbon output. this is a basic complication. going one level deeper, there is the supply chain of LEDs vs filament bulbs and the relative impact of their carbon footprints and mining of rare earth minerals. This is where it starts getting difficult to parse which is a net gain for the planet. another level below that is what you cite, the costs associated with the transition itself. A lot of energy (both electrical and human) is wasted by both supporters and detractors arguing in the public sphere, spending entire global broadcasts on the subject, flying around in private jets, etc. How much of this is necessary depends on the net savings from the first two levels, which is pretty hard to calculate accurately. So you do you, but personally I try not to commit to blanket statements that erase all nuance and subtlety - generally that leads to missing important context.

Dig1t 3y ago
LED bulbs are naturally way better. People install them in their house because they last longer and a simple calculation tells you that they are a better value. Also they are safer because of reduced operating heat. The government doesn’t need to force people to use green technologies, they are usually better. Lawn care products are a good example as well. Gas powered mowers, edgers, blowers etc are being phased out because their electric counterparts are simpler, quieter, and cheaper. Not because the government forces people to use them. A first principles understanding would suggest that more efficient technologies will win in the market usually because of reduced cost. The same is happening with cars as more companies invest and scale up their technology. Government incentives are accelerating this of course, which is good.
- hulitu 3y ago
  > LED bulbs are naturally way better. People install them in their house because they last longer and a simple calculation tells you that they are a better value In theory, yes. In practice, they just seem to be more expensive. It is amazing how the luminous intensity of an LED bulb can decrease over time.
- DontchaKnowit 3y ago
  What? LED bulbs suck. They are more expensive, produce poorer quality light, they often flicker, and they often take like 8 seconds to light up. Any consumer would choose flourescent given the chouxe in a vacuum

GeoAtreides 3y ago

As a general rule, I do listen to experts in fields in which I myself am not an expert. This rule is extremely useful, for example I am in good health thanks to listening to doctors; I also save so much time by trusting the civil engineers who built the bridges or tunnels I pass, instead of doing my own calculations, or trusting the aviation engineers who designed the planes I sometimes fly. I think I would be unable to function in the modern society if I wouldn't trust experts (in their fields).

vivekd 3y ago
I think experts are given credence because they can do a deep analysis. I expect a civil engineer to do calculations instead of just saying "I'm the expert trust me" Is this whole trust the expert thing some new phenomenon? Because I feel confident scientists were very keen to provide the reason and evidence for their beliefs. Saying someone should be trusted just because they are an expert seems against the spirit of science So is there reasons to believe in man made global warming? Is there is lots of reliable evidence. We should focus in that instead of who is making the claims. You and the parent are making different versions of a similar fallacy - his is ad hominem and yours is appeal to authority. The flaw in both is they focus on the identity of the speaker rather than evaluating the validity of what is said
- GeoAtreides 3y ago
  When I say that we should trust the experts/scientists, I don't mean trust or belief in the same you would trust a priest or a guru or your parents when you're little. Experts should be trusted in their fields because other experts in those fields trust them, and they trust them because they published and they studied and they prove they understand their field. It's not appeal to authority when I go to Einstein and ask about quantum mechanics and then reference his answer that light manifest a wave-particle duality; he is after all an worldwide recognised expert in quantum mechanics. But! If I were to ask him about whether abortion and then say: Abortion is so and so because Einstein says it's so and so and he's worldwide recognised expert -- that is appeal to authority.

hulitu 3y ago

As a general rule, they don't preach to other people. They just pay other people to do it.