2 ms·
This only works as an argument if you count the change cost but ignore the default cost. Like, if changing the world to stop global warming costs $5 trillion of
by xoa 3y ago
This only works as an argument if you count the change cost but ignore the default cost. Like, if changing the world to stop global warming costs $5 trillion of which much is borne by the poor that's hard. But if doing nothing means $40 trillion in cost and even more lands on the poor, well now what? It's easy to criticize doing anything at all, but the most likely outcome of making perfect the enemy of good is that no coordinated action happens at all and everyone just acts for themselves. And that's ignoring a lot of ways the developing world have acted to make themselves far worse off, yet then constantly have cried wolf about blaming others. Fatigue even amongst those who cares matters, as does relative advantage and leverage.
- dwb 3y agoI more or less agree (though I don't know about blaming the developing world so much given how little they've contributed to the problem in the first place!), and I'm certainly not trying to support Peterson's argument wholesale. But no matter how much it all makes sense in these terms, it's a really tough sell and I can totally see why. We live in a world which has made arguing for collective responsibility, a shared burden, virtually impossible – and that's certainly not down to the politics that I favour.