|
|
|
|
The Rat
SFN Regular
Canada
1370 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2001 : 19:07:18
|
Some of you will be familiar with this rant of mine from it's recent appearance over at Phil Plait's board. Now I'll let the rest of you have a go at it. I don't think it really belongs in 'pseudoscience', but what the heck, that's where the others are so I'll go with the trend.
There are four facts surrounding the entire debate about global warming which I believe are undeniable and inarguable, and are also not dependent upon data. They are, I feel, almost pure 'common sense' arguments. I know that may sound a little provocative, but I will state my prejudices clearly; I allow the first sentence in my first point below to govern my outlook on life. It's that simple.
1 The environment is the most important issue in the world simply because it is the world. Without it we're dead. At present we have no means of artificially keeping the world's air and water clean.
2 We have no way of knowing, and no way of predicting, how much damage we can inflict on the environment before the whole system collapses. We know that everything is interconnected, and that eventually it will collapse. For all we know we may be able to destroy 99% of the species on Earth and still be ok. But perhaps as I'm writing this, a patch of rainforest on the west coast of Borneo is being cleared, and will result in the destruction of the last colony of a species of beetle that will cause the entire system to fail.
3 None of the measures proposed to alleviate global warming will harm the environment; they will benefit it no matter what the facts are. If global warming has been overestimated, misinterpreted, or even is an outright lie, the environment will benefit.
4 If the worst case scenarios are correct, the results will be catastrophic, and would seriously endanger human civilization, and perhaps humanity itself.
Given these facts, is it not sensible to err on the side of caution? How could any thinking person say “well, we can't be sure so let's not do anything”?
I do not accept economic arguments for doing nothing. You can't eat dollar bills.
Free speech; excercise it or SHUT UP!
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2001 : 20:53:13 [Permalink]
|
Your Ideas are interesting and I have heard of worse 'undeniable facts' to live by. They even come close to my own outlook of live. That is why I feel that I have to point out some things that could be argued against them.
quote:
1 The environment is the most important issue in the world simply because it is the world. Without it we're dead. At present we have no means of artificially keeping the world's air and water clean.
You are certainly right, but you should not make the mistake to equate essential to most Important.
Your argument still stands depending on your definition of environment. If you incorporate everything including the your fellow human beings and most importantly yourself in the definition of environment, you are of course right.
quote:
2 We have no way of knowing, and no way of predicting, how much damage we can inflict on the environment before the whole system collapses. We know that everything is interconnected, and that eventually it will collapse.
As I have already pointed out in another discussion, the world does not have broken and fixed state. It is easy to see the environment as some sort of incredible complex mobile with mankind hanging on one of its threats. You cut of a dungbeatle somewhere and the whole balance shifts and depending on the connection mankind may not visible have moved at all or radically changed it's place.
The problem with this analogy is that the environment ain't a static system it is a dynamic always changing. We are not destroying it anymore then any other species does we are merely changing it. Killing of half the planets species in the process is entirely natural.
The problem is how our actions come back to us. We should not be afraid of destroying nature itself, but destroying our place in it.
quote:
3 None of the measures proposed to alleviate global warming will harm the environment; they will benefit it no matter what the facts are. If global warming has been overestimated, misinterpreted, or even is an outright lie, the environment will benefit.
As I said above we can't really harm nature, but your statement would even be wrong if you restated it as harming our place in nature. Just to give an example: Increasing the use of Nuclear energy instead of fossil fuels might very well harm nature.
quote:
4 If the worst case scenarios are correct, the results will be catastrophic, and would seriously endanger human civilization, and perhaps humanity itself.
The worst case scenario is rather unlikely. The consequences have the potential to seriously harm human civilisation, but it's total annihilation is not something you should wait for. Waterworld scenarios are not taken serious by anyone anymore.
If you were always judging things by it's worst case scenario, you would not drive in cars fly in planes, have sex or do pretty much anything else. Not that I encourage taking risks where the whole of mankind has to suffer the consequences.
quote:
Giv |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
