4 ms·
The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides? I’m not saying this is a good way to think,
by brutusborn 3y ago
The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides?
I’m not saying this is a good way to think, just that it shows the fault in your logic.
- InSteady 3y ago>The same logic applies to shutting down oil and gas production: if we are not certain, then why risk the downsides? You are conflating the cost of not extracting a fraction of a fraction of current production capacity with the risk ending human existence through changing systems we do not have anything close to a full understanding of nor precise control over. Degrees of risk matter, in fact they are the whole point of GPs logic.
- brutusborn 3y agoI’m not conflating them, I’m trying to elicit someone to _compare_ them so we can discuss reflexively rejecting certain solutions. If you don’t have some measure of cost / benefits / risks, how can you reject a potential solution outright? The answer is you can’t, so if you are doing so your reflex is based on emotion rather than reason.
- IlliOnato 3y agoI was not commenting on any measures intended to stop/reverse the climate change. (I don't have enough knowledge to various probabilities). I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said: > Existential threat means things can’t get worse And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...