4 ms·

> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery. Lots of things happened within 200 years

> If one is happening within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution, the cause is not exactly a mystery. Lots of things happened within 200 years of the advent of the industrial revolution. Correlation is necessary but not sufficient to show causation. To be clear, I believe humans have caused this problem, but how is it even possible to claim scientific knowledge of it? Where is your control experiment?

alphapapa 11y ago
It's nice to see someone who is reasonable, who admits we can't prove it scientifically. But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.
- anon1385 11y ago
  >But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational. Give me an example of something that is knowable with absolute certainty.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What's your point? Here's mine: We don't know for certain how big an effect we actually have. We don't know whether we are actually responsible for these events (e.g. mass extinction, climate change). But what we do know is that trying to prevent or reverse these things would definitely harm real people, right now, while making certain groups more wealthy and powerful, and keeping certain other groups poor and weak. Therefore, we should not do what we know will certainly cause harm, unless and until we know that not doing it will certainly cause greater harm.
- cactusface 11y ago
  We operate on beliefs all the time. For example, the belief that science is good. We've destroyed a lot of natural habitats, and we know that these habitats contain a great deal of biodiversity. We just don't know what would have happened if we hadn't destroyed those habitats. My guess is that we wouldn't be facing a mass extinction event, but there's no way to check. Even if there was only a 10% chance humans were responsible, I would still rather play it safe than ignore the issue.
  - alphapapa 11y ago
    What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?
    - cactusface 11y ago
      Can you clarify what you mean by "harm"? I think it's a judgment call as to whether we should proceed with the method to stop the extinction. For example, if it means sterilizing all humans, I would say don't do it. If it means everybody has to be vegetarian, I would say do it. If it means economic harm, then it would depend on the extent and the available measures to mitigate it.
      - alphapapa 11y ago
        What I mean by harm is things like enacting economic policies which would do things like prevent the developing world from developing, resulting in people remaining in poverty. It's easy for healthy, happy, relatively wealthy people to say that we should cut emissions (cf. DiCaprio). But reality is that, if those people practiced what they preach, they'd be living in log cabins--without solar panels. And I certainly take issue with your vegetarian example. What other people eat is none of your business. It sounds almost funny, but that would be food fascism--is there any other word for it? Do you really want some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk writing memos telling you what you are and are not allowed to eat? How can you think that's a good idea? The more governments try to control people, the more people are harmed. Doesn't history make this obvious? Why do people seem to think, "Yeah, but we can get it right This Time"?
        cactusface 11y ago
        Hypothetical question: an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth. You don't know for sure if it will hit, but you're pretty sure that if it does hit, it will be exceedingly bad. As the supreme authority on Earth, what resources are you willing to sacrifice to try and blow it up or divert it? edit: Never mind, I read your answer up above. Well, anyway, a judgment call.

alphapapa 11y ago

It's nice to see someone who is reasonable, who admits we can't prove it scientifically. But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational.

anon1385 11y ago
>But I am curious: since you admit we can't know that humans are the cause, why do you think humans are the cause? That doesn't seem rational. Give me an example of something that is knowable with absolute certainty.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What's your point? Here's mine: We don't know for certain how big an effect we actually have. We don't know whether we are actually responsible for these events (e.g. mass extinction, climate change). But what we do know is that trying to prevent or reverse these things would definitely harm real people, right now, while making certain groups more wealthy and powerful, and keeping certain other groups poor and weak. Therefore, we should not do what we know will certainly cause harm, unless and until we know that not doing it will certainly cause greater harm.
cactusface 11y ago
We operate on beliefs all the time. For example, the belief that science is good. We've destroyed a lot of natural habitats, and we know that these habitats contain a great deal of biodiversity. We just don't know what would have happened if we hadn't destroyed those habitats. My guess is that we wouldn't be facing a mass extinction event, but there's no way to check. Even if there was only a 10% chance humans were responsible, I would still rather play it safe than ignore the issue.
- alphapapa 11y ago
  What if trying to stop a process--which we only have a 10% chance of stopping--would have a 100% chance of harming people? Is definitely harming people "playing it safe"?
  - cactusface 11y ago
    Can you clarify what you mean by "harm"? I think it's a judgment call as to whether we should proceed with the method to stop the extinction. For example, if it means sterilizing all humans, I would say don't do it. If it means everybody has to be vegetarian, I would say do it. If it means economic harm, then it would depend on the extent and the available measures to mitigate it.
    - alphapapa 11y ago
      What I mean by harm is things like enacting economic policies which would do things like prevent the developing world from developing, resulting in people remaining in poverty. It's easy for healthy, happy, relatively wealthy people to say that we should cut emissions (cf. DiCaprio). But reality is that, if those people practiced what they preach, they'd be living in log cabins--without solar panels. And I certainly take issue with your vegetarian example. What other people eat is none of your business. It sounds almost funny, but that would be food fascism--is there any other word for it? Do you really want some bureaucrat sitting behind a desk writing memos telling you what you are and are not allowed to eat? How can you think that's a good idea? The more governments try to control people, the more people are harmed. Doesn't history make this obvious? Why do people seem to think, "Yeah, but we can get it right This Time"?
      - cactusface 11y ago
        Hypothetical question: an asteroid is hurtling towards Earth. You don't know for sure if it will hit, but you're pretty sure that if it does hit, it will be exceedingly bad. As the supreme authority on Earth, what resources are you willing to sacrifice to try and blow it up or divert it? edit: Never mind, I read your answer up above. Well, anyway, a judgment call.