4 ms·

Personally, I don't care if global warming is real, imagined, man-made, or naturally-occurring. Because, from where I stand, the "austerity" measures and lifest

Personally, I don't care if global warming is real, imagined, man-made, or naturally-occurring. Because, from where I stand, the "austerity" measures and lifestyle changes that have been proposed to combat global-warming (at least in the U.S.) are pretty much all good things that should be pursued, regardless. And yet people (the majority of Americans, it seems) sneer at the thought of making personal or societal sacrifices for the sake of species or generations other than our own. It always frustrates me - the sense of entitlement to not having to care about the downsides of convenience.

smky80 13y ago
I don't disagree with your sentiment. I do have practical and moral objections though to policies which couldn't possibly mitigate the issue in question but still involve the societal sacrifices. In the end, cheap clean energy like fusion, thorium fission, solar ("burning" the water/rocks/sunlight) is really the only solution to both peak oil and global warming.
nawitus 13y ago
Eh? If global warming was not real, and there wouldn't be any negative sides from CO2 emissions, then it would of course be bad to reduce Co2 emissions by lowering the standard of living (assuming that you're an utilitarian and not a psychopath). On the other hand, maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions. I think well being of people should be maximized, and in the optimal situation there shouldn't be any lifestyle changes or "austerity" measures to reduce CO2 emissions if there's no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. If they're required, then of course it's reasonable to adopt them.
- hispanic 13y ago
  > maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions. Bingo. I'm not focusing so much on the carbon emissions themselves so much as the side-effects and purposes of those emissions. Removing mountaintops to get at coal and risking oily beaches and terrorist attacks to get at oil. Encouraging attitudes that careless disposability and physical inactivity are OK and normal. > I think well being of people should be maximized The problem with maximizing people's well-being is that "well-being" has been bastardized to encompass all sorts of things that were once considered luxurious, superficial, wasteful, and pure convenience.

smky80 13y ago

I don't disagree with your sentiment. I do have practical and moral objections though to policies which couldn't possibly mitigate the issue in question but still involve the societal sacrifices. In the end, cheap clean energy like fusion, thorium fission, solar ("burning" the water/rocks/sunlight) is really the only solution to both peak oil and global warming.

nawitus 13y ago

Eh? If global warming was not real, and there wouldn't be any negative sides from CO2 emissions, then it would of course be bad to reduce Co2 emissions by lowering the standard of living (assuming that you're an utilitarian and not a psychopath). On the other hand, maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions. I think well being of people should be maximized, and in the optimal situation there shouldn't be any lifestyle changes or "austerity" measures to reduce CO2 emissions if there's no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. If they're required, then of course it's reasonable to adopt them.

hispanic 13y ago
> maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions. Bingo. I'm not focusing so much on the carbon emissions themselves so much as the side-effects and purposes of those emissions. Removing mountaintops to get at coal and risking oily beaches and terrorist attacks to get at oil. Encouraging attitudes that careless disposability and physical inactivity are OK and normal. > I think well being of people should be maximized The problem with maximizing people's well-being is that "well-being" has been bastardized to encompass all sorts of things that were once considered luxurious, superficial, wasteful, and pure convenience.