3 ms·

> If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another I don’t, neither do I think competition means a close system. But it’s definitely a s

> If you think canceling one automatically means more support for another I don’t, neither do I think competition means a close system. But it’s definitely a system where parties influence each others. Your beer does not share any goal with mammoth, but other environmental projects does. Let’s say you want to invest 5€ to fight climate change. During your search of projets to support, you might encounter the cool-mammoth one. Now there’s competition for those 5€.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
That is a hypothetical concern, not a statement about reality. It is easy to construct "just so" stories for anything, but that doesn't mean they are true or meaningful. I dont want to sound harsh but I see this type of thought quite often. I think it is a major irrational distortion to conflate possibility and theory for reality. It is unclear if money targeted for environmental work has ever gone to mammoths, or ever will. Why should the mere possibility dictate anything or drive any action?
- aziaziazi 2y ago
  > If I save $5 on beer […] > It is easy to construct "just so" stories for anything You lost me. > Why should the mere possibility dictate anything or drive any action? It shouldn’t. Revive and Restore communication/branding/marketing, probably does. From their website: > "WHY BRING BACK THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH? 1) AN ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE"
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Im sorry if I lost you. Im saying "just so" stories should not be a valid basis for concern. Branding isn't evidence that proposals are in competition for funding opposed to additive. The only evidence is your "just so" story, and even that doesn't mean it is meaningful. It strikes me similar to a runaway precautionary principle or concern trolling. It doesnt matter if you can imagine a scenario where something bad happens. What really matters is if that bad scenario actually happens, and how often.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

That is a hypothetical concern, not a statement about reality. It is easy to construct "just so" stories for anything, but that doesn't mean they are true or meaningful. I dont want to sound harsh but I see this type of thought quite often. I think it is a major irrational distortion to conflate possibility and theory for reality. It is unclear if money targeted for environmental work has ever gone to mammoths, or ever will. Why should the mere possibility dictate anything or drive any action?

aziaziazi 2y ago
> If I save $5 on beer […] > It is easy to construct "just so" stories for anything You lost me. > Why should the mere possibility dictate anything or drive any action? It shouldn’t. Revive and Restore communication/branding/marketing, probably does. From their website: > "WHY BRING BACK THE WOOLLY MAMMOTH? 1) AN ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CONFRONTING CLIMATE CHANGE"
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Im sorry if I lost you. Im saying "just so" stories should not be a valid basis for concern. Branding isn't evidence that proposals are in competition for funding opposed to additive. The only evidence is your "just so" story, and even that doesn't mean it is meaningful. It strikes me similar to a runaway precautionary principle or concern trolling. It doesnt matter if you can imagine a scenario where something bad happens. What really matters is if that bad scenario actually happens, and how often.