4 ms·

It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in t

by 001sky 13y ago

It matters precisely in a moral sense. Because of the (in)effectuality of the action. Resources are scarce, and you are taking food from a baby...somewhere in the world. Of course none of this matters if you are having "first-world" pyschological problems about guilt...or you are trying to secure some money or presige for your first-world cushy lifestyle.

vehementi 13y ago
Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies
- glenra 13y ago
  > Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies They aren't? Wait, let's make the claim more specific. Biofuel mandates that had been justified in part based on CO2 concerns have driven up the cost of corn and other grains - crops and farmland is being needlessly diverted from food to fuel. Making grains more expensive has indeed been a cause of starvation in the third world. Um, here: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-and-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-an...
1stop 13y ago
Energy production is the main 'human contribution' (I think?). Are you really saying, that the Energy industry is a starving baby? They are the richest companies in the world, they can easily afford ALL of the changes that have been suggested, but it isn't about 'affordability' it is about profitablity. Making things more efficient, and encouraging more self/clean power generation runs contrary to Energy companies profit motive, so of course they will resist it and even run marketing to say that the world will be worse off if it is more efficient and "cleaner". And as a collective we have and continue to be stupid enough to buy into their narrative.
- 001sky 13y ago
  This is an argument from convenience. Its like blaming the drug dealers for wall street's cocaine problems. Notwithstanding that issue, you have the opportunity cost of focus and attention on something. Which means you likely have remidiable inefficiency in other areas. It is that which kills...like taking your eye off the road and having a car accident. Again, that has nothing to do with the (oil,power,auto) companies or whether or not you dirve a prius, a tesla, or an F-150.
  - 1stop 13y ago
    Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement with some fact rather than rhetoric. In your metaphor, this is like blaming the drug dealers for the "drugs being sold on the street" problem. The drug dealer has no interest in selling you a 'drug manufacturing kit' for your home, he/she wants to keep you coming back. I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue. The corporate 'profit motive' has nothing to provide. We have the resources to do everything we want to do, and it makes ethical sense. But a rational organisation (which is, by definition driven by profit) would never invest in this, because it would reduce its profit. This isn't an argument of convenience, this is a "point out the fucking obvious"
    - 001sky 13y ago
      This is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks. "I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue." It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>. As I am sure you would appreciate.
      - 1stop 13y ago
        I have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't respond because of starving babies" comment. That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money, and it could be used, no babies would stave. But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive. You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding. To simplify: "We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and no baby would need to starve". I'm not saying: - We need to do something - We are the cause of global warming - Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce global warming.

by 001sky 13y ago

vehementi 13y ago

Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies

glenra 13y ago
> Scarce resources aren't the cause of starving babies They aren't? Wait, let's make the claim more specific. Biofuel mandates that had been justified in part based on CO2 concerns have driven up the cost of corn and other grains - crops and farmland is being needlessly diverted from food to fuel. Making grains more expensive has indeed been a cause of starvation in the third world. Um, here: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-and-benjamin-senauer/how-biofuels-could-starve-the-poor http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62609/c-ford-runge-an...

1stop 13y ago

Energy production is the main 'human contribution' (I think?). Are you really saying, that the Energy industry is a starving baby? They are the richest companies in the world, they can easily afford ALL of the changes that have been suggested, but it isn't about 'affordability' it is about profitablity. Making things more efficient, and encouraging more self/clean power generation runs contrary to Energy companies profit motive, so of course they will resist it and even run marketing to say that the world will be worse off if it is more efficient and "cleaner". And as a collective we have and continue to be stupid enough to buy into their narrative.

001sky 13y ago
This is an argument from convenience. Its like blaming the drug dealers for wall street's cocaine problems. Notwithstanding that issue, you have the opportunity cost of focus and attention on something. Which means you likely have remidiable inefficiency in other areas. It is that which kills...like taking your eye off the road and having a car accident. Again, that has nothing to do with the (oil,power,auto) companies or whether or not you dirve a prius, a tesla, or an F-150.
- 1stop 13y ago
  Then please refute the "energy is the largest contributing industry" statement with some fact rather than rhetoric. In your metaphor, this is like blaming the drug dealers for the "drugs being sold on the street" problem. The drug dealer has no interest in selling you a 'drug manufacturing kit' for your home, he/she wants to keep you coming back. I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue. The corporate 'profit motive' has nothing to provide. We have the resources to do everything we want to do, and it makes ethical sense. But a rational organisation (which is, by definition driven by profit) would never invest in this, because it would reduce its profit. This isn't an argument of convenience, this is a "point out the fucking obvious"
  - 001sky 13y ago
    This is a political argument about taxes, and has nothing to do with either climate or science. If you want to tax these people, go ahead...get together a bunch of special interests and some money and go lobby the relevant folks. "I was pointing out, that given it is a humanistic/moral issue." It may very well be indeed. But in the context of the submitted article and its discussion, it is proving the point about the use and abuse of data and science. There is a difference between a "moral use of science" and dressing up a "moral/political special interest position" as a <position of science>. As I am sure you would appreciate.
    - 1stop 13y ago
      I have no 'special interest'. I was responding to the idea that "we can't respond because of starving babies" comment. That is factually untrue, and my response was based on fact, there is money, and it could be used, no babies would stave. But I pointed out it was never considered because if the profit motive. You seem to be railing against a position I am not holding. To simplify: "We could do everything we thought was needed to decrease global warming and no baby would need to starve". I'm not saying: - We need to do something - We are the cause of global warming - Doing the things we think will reduce global warming will actually reduce global warming.