5 ms·
> By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either Uh... yes? Would you rather take a 50mph head on collision driving a 2023 Outback or a 1930 Model A? The poin
by ajross 3y ago
> By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either
Uh... yes? Would you rather take a 50mph head on collision driving a 2023 Outback or a 1930 Model A?
The point is that car crashes are indeed dangerous, and we've spent a century of engineering making them significantly (vastly, really) less so. And that's a good thing to be celebrated, and not rejected just because we don't want to get into crashes in the first place. Climate change mitigation follows the same ethical principles.
- orf 3y agoNo idea, I don't drive. But both of those are a crash, regardless of the speed or model.
- ajross 3y agoThen let me be clearer: one is a routine, eminently survivable collisoin that happens dozens of times every day, the other is a certain death sentence. They are different, and they are different because smart people cared to fix a problem they saw instead of just throwing up their hands in despair. To wit: if you genuinely care about this stuff, get off your ass and help instead of whining on the internet.
- yreg 3y agoBoth of the situations are car crashes. What are you even claiming?
- ajross 3y agoThat deaths in car crashes[1] are not a fait accompli and that their impact may be mitigated by careful engineering and hard work. And by extension, that fatalism regarding other problems[2] is subject to the same kind of solutions. And finally that using car crashes as a metaphor for other such problems[3], as the upthread poster did, is a poor analogy and actually supports the case for action, and not despair. [1] Actually climate change. It's a metaphor. [2] Climate change, again. [3] Yup.