3 ms·

Huh? How under my scenario do millions die like how you stated? What assumptions did you insert in order to conclude with an ad hominem straw argument? If you'

by loceng 3y ago

Huh? How under my scenario do millions die like how you stated? What assumptions did you insert in order to conclude with an ad hominem straw argument? If you're willing to implement policy that increases the cost of energy then you're also in support of killing off the poorest, right? Jordan Peterson has regularly brought this up in this argument points against the current strategy of CO2 taxes, etc - which are actually worse for the environment because then people can't afford the less polluting energy sources, and then they burn wood - worse for environment for pollution, worse for their own health, and it destroys forests.

Tadpole9181 3y ago
Oh, good, we're citing Jordan Peterson now.
- loceng 3y ago
  Oh, good, HN is showing it's ideological-uncritical side - smearing/attacking individuals rather than argument points. Good job!
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
Your claim that people will switch from fossil fuels to wood rather than electricity needs some evidence, not just a theory from some random talking head. It’s possible that some people might, but how many?
- loceng 3y ago
  Firstly, this "random talking head" theory is based on basic-foundational economics: when costs go up, less people can afford those costs - and if it's survival related, they will cut down trees if that is available for heating and cooking. There also is legitimate research showing that once people earn "$5,000" per year minimum then they are able to actually start caring about non-selfish, holistic-society wide problems - otherwise survival rightly has them concentrating on themselves; which I hope logically makes sense to you, and you don't require me to dig up the link(s)? Second, what source(s) are acceptable-authoritative to you, e.g. what source(s) will you actually believe? Do you also think those people are properly or correctly accounted for? It's why we should work from first principles of logic, and where zero or very near zero people (and I don't mean millions of lives being an acceptable number) are ; do no harm.

by loceng 3y ago

Tadpole9181 3y ago

Oh, good, we're citing Jordan Peterson now.

loceng 3y ago
Oh, good, HN is showing it's ideological-uncritical side - smearing/attacking individuals rather than argument points. Good job!

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

Your claim that people will switch from fossil fuels to wood rather than electricity needs some evidence, not just a theory from some random talking head. It’s possible that some people might, but how many?

loceng 3y ago
Firstly, this "random talking head" theory is based on basic-foundational economics: when costs go up, less people can afford those costs - and if it's survival related, they will cut down trees if that is available for heating and cooking. There also is legitimate research showing that once people earn "$5,000" per year minimum then they are able to actually start caring about non-selfish, holistic-society wide problems - otherwise survival rightly has them concentrating on themselves; which I hope logically makes sense to you, and you don't require me to dig up the link(s)? Second, what source(s) are acceptable-authoritative to you, e.g. what source(s) will you actually believe? Do you also think those people are properly or correctly accounted for? It's why we should work from first principles of logic, and where zero or very near zero people (and I don't mean millions of lives being an acceptable number) are ; do no harm.