3 ms·
Lobbying for some change that's necessary to avoid a global scale catastrophe implies "the end justifies the means", thus should be rejected?
by zurn 14y ago
Lobbying for some change that's necessary to avoid a global scale catastrophe implies "the end justifies the means", thus should be rejected?
- mseebach 14y agoNo. But that's not what the GP does.
- smsm42 14y agoDepends on the nature of "something" and the value of "necessary". If somebody argued that to avoid global overpopulation and Malthusian catastrophe, we are to kill every 10th child born - you would probably reject this, even though the argument would be "it is necessary to avoid a global scale catastrophe". So far all Malthusian predictions of global scale exhaustion reliably turned false and in most cases, laughably so, in hindsight. This teaches us that such claims should be taken with extreme skepticism and drastic measures proposed under these claims are most probably not justified. This, of course, does not contradict the usability of technology (or non-technology means) for greater efficiency of energy use, conservation, etc. There's nothing wrong with recycling, reuse and energy saving. It just doesn't need to be turned to extremes under the slogans of future catastrophe that would never happen.