posted
A recent blog post by economist Bryan Caplan (author of The Myth of the Rational Voter) has made me consider what sort of ideas would push me out of some of my "standard" positions. In some cases, I'm not sure if data exists, since my stance on the issue derives from an ought, not an is. But some things are certainly up for grabs.
Take global-warming. I'm generally semi-conservative regarding efforts to fight global warming. Not sure if the situation requires the world-wide life-altering efforts that some environmentalist are suggesting. To change that position, I'd need data that shows that human change now will make a significant difference in the eventual outcome. I'd also need a good argument why technological progress won't lead to significantly better solutions in the future (which would suggest putting off the problem 'til then). Finally, I'd also need a good argument that a world-wide effort could be made - I don't think the world has ever achieved a result that required enormous amounts of concerted action across both time and nations to solve a non-immediate problem. (The best example of coordinated action would probably be the World Wars, but there the problem was quite visible, the required action obvious, and wars and their solution aren't exactly a new thing under the sun.)
What are the things that would convince you to change your mind on a topic? For what topics does nothing exist?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Confirmed fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.
That'd take me for a loop, right there!
Well, in one subject. Um... with religious things, perhaps the miraculous appearance of God in the manner some people have claimed... the level of miracle some people have claimed to have seen... you know, that sort of thing.
Let's see... more political opinions, though? A lot of them, I'd love to see actual data as to, say, different ideas like socialized medicine and all the rest actually work, compared to the current thing. I actually feel as though I need more data before becoming REALLY set in a lot of political opinions.
W4ell, more philosophical things I'm less interested in changing. I know why I think we should keep abortion legal, as I've seen enough data and chosen the premeses I value. That probably won't change anytime soon. Gay marriage? I don't think my opinion on that is any more likely to change than my opinion on slavery, and prejudice in the first place. (Are you seeing some of my assumptions as well as a hint of the premeses behind my view on that subject?)
So, really, I guess I'm more flexible on economic issues than social issues, and some social issues I'm more flexible with than others...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: [QB] A recent blog post Take global-warming. I'm generally semi-conservative regarding efforts to fight global warming. Not sure if the situation requires the world-wide life-altering efforts that some environmentalist are suggesting. To change that position, I'd need data that shows that human change now will make a significant difference in the eventual outcome. I'd also need a good argument why technological progress won't lead to significantly better solutions in the future (which would suggest putting off the problem 'til then). Finally, I'd also need a good argument that a world-wide effort could be made - I don't think the world has ever achieved a result that required enormous amounts of concerted action across both time and nations to solve a non-immediate problem. (The best example of coordinated action would probably be the World Wars, but there the problem was quite visible, the required action obvious, and wars and their solution aren't exactly a new thing under the sun.) /QB]
Let's take global warming for example. I believe that we should act in accordance with the precautionary principle and be willing to alter our lives to prevent the potentially irreversiable catastrophic events. To change my mind, I would need one of the following.
1. A scienfic consensus (>60% of peer reviewed publications) that burning fossil fuels was unlikely to cause catastrophic climate change.
2. An overwhelming scientific consensus (>90% of peer reviewed publications) that we had already crossed a tipping point where changes could not make a difference.
3. A certain knowledge (perhaps through devine revelation?) that an unanticipated future event (miraculous new technology, enormous rise in volcanic activity, the rapture) would solve the problem for us.
(As an aside, I find Jhai's position on Global warming to be a) uniformed and b) grossly unethical. Its the equivalent of saying that before he support slower speed limits in school zones he would need want studies showing that lower speeds would save childrens lives, evidence that the problem couldn't be solved by some new technology and he'd have to be convinced that everybody else would drive slower. )
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(As an aside, I am a female. And, arguing by analogy isn't a good strategy when the situations aren't analogous. My position on global warming is informed by both the science around global warming, and economic reasoning - mainly that scarcities exist, and I'd rather see the money go towards problems that we are CERTAIN that exist, such hunger and disease. I don't think that this is an unethical position. If you want to discuss this further in another thread, I'd be willing to do so.)
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I believe that we should act in accordance with the precautionary principle and be willing to alter our lives to prevent the potentially irreversiable catastrophic events.
I think that the different beliefs boil down to this precautionary principle, and the individual beliefs as to the impact of our daily lives on the planet.
Especially in the United States, the precautionary principle is virtually non-existent. We try things first, then find out the impacts, and then try minimize the impacts without changing the process.
Until just recently, these "end-of-the-pipe" fixes were the only solutions that we could come up with. All engineering was geared towards fixing what came out of the pipes.
quote:Originally posted by The Jhai: I'd also need a good argument why technological progress won't lead to significantly better solutions in the future (which would suggest putting off the problem 'til then).
Even with radically innovative technological solutions, our daily outputs (waste, pollution, heat, etc) will remain unchanged. People will still produce waste in their homes, drive vehicles with energy derived from probably a non-renewable source, and waste water in large quantities. Compound this with an increasingly growing population, and technological solutions will almost certainly not be enough.
So we need to start looking at the problems OF rather than IN technology, engineering, etc. The end-of-pipe solutions to pollution were solutions within the established rules and customs of engineering. They helped mitigate some of the impacts, but did nothing to stop the source. Only recently has attention been giving to the problems OF industry. Making industrial processes more cyclical, utilizing existing energy and mass flows, and trying to focus on cradle-to-cradle rather than cradle-to-grave processes are all ways to fix the problems OF, rather than the problems IN, our industrial system.
I see it more like this:
I'd need a good argument why it is assumed that technological progress will lead to significantly better solutions in the future. What if it doesn't? What if we can't figure it out? Is it worth putting all of our eggs in this one basket?
Edit to add: I guess what I would need to change my mind is for someone, who knows what he/she is talking about, to look at all of the existing information and make some sort of risk analysis, saying that even though it is possible that we (humans) can have a direct impact on climate, it is not probable. (And then they would have to supply their reasoning).
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, I have been involved in scientific research on global warming. I have followed the scientific literature on this for 20+ years. Your first statement
quote:I'd need data that shows that human change now will make a significant difference in the eventual outcome." indicates that you have not read the recent IPCC report which summarizes the science in this area which is why I said you are uninformed.
Your second statement,
quote:"I'd also need a good argument why technological progress won't lead to significantly better solutions in the future (which would suggest putting off the problem 'til then)."
Suggest that you are either unfamiliar with the vast amount of scientific data that indicates the problem may become impossible to combat if we don't act quickly or you are naively hoping for a technological miracle.
Your third statement
quote:Finally, I'd also need a good argument that a world-wide effort could be made - I don't think the world has ever achieved a result that required enormous amounts of concerted action across both time and nations to solve a non-immediate problem.
The point of much of the work on Climate Change is to build a global consensus. The US has been one of the primary detractors in this effort. Scientists are forcasting a global catastrophy that could kill over 1 billion people. Certainly its worthy trying to prevent such a catastrophy even if we can't be certain we will succeed.
And as for your final point.
quote:mainly that scarcities exist, and I'd rather see the money go towards problems that we are CERTAIN that exist, such hunger and disease.
I find that uncompelling. We live in one of the most properous nations in the world. The US could give up 10% of our GDP to combat climate change and still have a per capita GDP greater than Denmark, Austria, England, Germany, Canada, Japan, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands. All of which enjoy a more than comfortable standard of living and give more per capita to combat global hunger and disease. If you are worried about hunger and disease, you need to look at the scientific studies that show how climate change is already contributing to those problems and the forecasts for how much worse they will get unless we change.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: (As an aside, I am a female. And, arguing by analogy isn't a good strategy when the situations aren't analogous
But from my point of view the situations are analogous. There is compelling scientific evidence that lower speeds in school zones save lives. There is compelling scientific evidence that inaction on climate change will cost millions of lives. To demand more proof before taking action on either one, is analogous.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: Much of what you have said on this topic has swayed me a great deal though I never acknowledged it.
Would it be unreasonable for skeptics of global warming to require evidence along the lines of,
Scientists being able, to a reasonable degree, predict climate trends over a period of 10 years, 20 years being better.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'd rather see the money go towards problems that we are CERTAIN that exist, such hunger and disease. I don't think that this is an unethical. (If you want to discuss this further in another thread, I'd be willing to do so.)
We've had so many threads on climate change that I reticent to start another one. For now, I'll continue my comments here. The precautionary principle says that there is an ethical obligation to act if inaction has the potential to cause an irreversible catastrophy even if that catastropy is not a scientific certainty.
Under this principle, a person has an ethical obligation to apply the breaks and come to a full stop when approaching a stop sign because failure to do so could cause catastrophic loss of life. That ethical obligation exists even though there is a very good chance that you can run some stop signs and nothing bad will happen.
Under this principle, people had an ethical obligation to fight against Nazi Germany since failure to oppose Hitler could have lead to catastrophic loss of life and liberty. That ethical obligation existed even though at the time people didn't know with certainty that Hitler would execute people in death camps and people could not know with certainty that fighting Hitler would not cost more lives than cooperating with him.
And right now the best evidence we have indicates that failure to act to curb climate change right now is very likely to cause an irreversible global catastrophy. Under the precautionary principle, inaction at this time is unethical even though the outcomes are not certain.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Rabbit: Much of what you have said on this topic has swayed me a great deal though I never acknowledged it.
Would it be unreasonable for skeptics of global warming to require evidence along the lines of,
Scientists being able, to a reasonable degree, predict climate trends over a period of 10 years, 20 years being better.
I don't know, what would you consider reasonably predict? If you are asking for scientists to reasonably predict the next 10 to 20 years of climate before we do anything then I'd say thats unreasoble since the current prediction indicate we are already 10 to 20 years behind in combating climate change. That would also be unreasonable since no one can predict how human activity will change over the next 10 to 20 years. The rate at which developing nations industrialize will have a significant impact as will whether or not Americans decide to drive compact cars of gas guzzling SUV. Add in other unpredictable factors like volcanoes, wars and so forth and you can see that being able to predict the climate for 10 to 20 years in the future depends on alot more than the validity of the greenhouse theories. Those big unknowns, however, will only change whether the catastrophy happens in 20 years or 40 years. They won't change the underlying principle.
If you are willing to accept predicing the past 10 to 20 years, then I'd say the science is there. Right now climate models are able to accurately predict the climate change we have observed over the past half century. That means that if you use ~1960 for the starting point of the models, and you include the known changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar irradiation, volcanic eruptions etc. in the models, they get an outcome that is very close to what has actually happened over the past 50 years.
Perhaps more significantly, 30 years ago climate change scientists were predicting that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would cause Global Warming even though no Global warming had been observed. Heck the first predictions of this were made over a century ago. Those prediction only match what's happened qualitatively. But they did get the trend right.
Its very easy to get the impression from the media hype that Global Warming is a very recent scientific theory. Its easy to get the impression that we had a couple of hot summers and scientists started to ask why? That isn't how it happened. Over a century ago, it was predicted that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming. For the 60 years scientistst have been measuring increases in the CO2 levels in our atmosphere. For over 3 decades, there has been a concerted effort to model the changes we are making in the atmosphere. During the past decade, it has become evident that the global climate is changing in ways that a consistent with the scientific theory.
When I first started following the scientific literature on this in the mid 80s, one of the big questions was why the planet hadn't warmed significantly despite the rising levels of green house gases. Scientists found the answer to that question. Particulate air pollution was countering the greenhouse effect and they predicted that the greenhouse effect would soon over take the particulate effect. That has in fact happened.
Over the past 25 years the question in Climate Change research has shifted from "Why aren't we seeing the changes our models have predicted" to "We are now seeing signifcant changes in the climate, can we verify that these are the result of the greenhouse effect".
Predictions scientists made before I first started studying this field in the mid 80s are happening. They didn't get the exact amount of warming right but they got the trend right. I call that pretty good prediction for a system as complex as the earth's climate.
[ November 29, 2007, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I don't really want to be discussing global warming, at least tonight as I have work to do. However, I doubt you'll find any professional ethicists using the "precautionary principle," at least as you've described it. This is because there are an infinite number of things where inaction might cause an irreversible catastrophe. So choices have to be made. We aren't putting billions of dollars into research for each of the many diseases out there which might mutate enough to kill off the human race (which is an irreversible catastrophe, at least from humanity's perspective). We aren't putting billions of dollars into tracking every asteroid out there, even though if a large enough one struck the world, it could end all life on the planet.
We simply cannot protect against every potential catastrophe. And since basically every philosopher agrees that "ought implies can," there cannot be a moral principle that requires us to "act if inaction has the potential to cause an irreversible catastrophe, even if that catastrophe is not a scientific certainty."
If you want to continue this argument, please put forth a valid philosophical principle. And explain to me why we should spend money towards fixing global warming (even if we aren't sure we can) when we don't spend money towards those other potential dangers.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, I don't really want to be discussing global warming, at least tonight as I have work to do. However, I doubt you'll find any professional ethicists using the "precautionary principle," at least as you've described it. This is because there are an infinite number of things where inaction might cause an irreversible catastrophe.
Which is why, I think, Rabbit has suggested that you only slow down and stop at the stop signs rather than every 50 feet.
There are credible indications that we may be on the verge of a major crisis re: climate change, so at this time it would be wise to take precautions.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just objecting to the ethical principle that Rabbit suggested must inform our actions. As the principle is demonstrably false, he needs to come up with another one to base his argument on. I can formally show a logical proof that the principle is wrong if you wish.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I doubt you'll find any professional ethicists using the "precautionary principle," at least as you've described it.
Actually, I have worked with two professional ethicist, Dr. Peggie Battin and Dr. James Tabery (both philosophy professors a the University of Utah) who introduced my to the precautionary principle. I have since read a considerable amount on the subject. I gave a very abbreviate statement of the principle, below are some links to a more complete discussion of the principle.
The precautionary principle applies when there is "scientific uncertainty" not when there is no knowledge what so ever. It is generally acknowledged that the principle should be applied when there is good reason to believe that harmful effects might occur. For example, as a precautionary measure, all new medicines are deemed harmful and thus their distribution is banned untill they have been through the proper laboratory and clinical tests to "prove" they are benign.
Most ethicists stress that although the precautionary principle operates in the face of scientific uncertainty, it should only be applied when the best available data suggests there is good reason to believe harm may occur.
The examples I gave are of such a nature. You may be able to run stop signs 9 times out of 10 without any harm. But still the potential that someone could die if you run the stop sign generates an ethical obligation to stop every time.
The allied troops could have slowed the Nazi genocide by bombing Auschwitz in 1943. They did not have scientific proof that a catastrophy would happen there but they did have much evidence including requests and proposals that this be done. The Allies had the means to stop genocide, they had evidence but not proof it was occurring. The precautionary principle says they failed their ethical obligation to act.
And when it comes to Global Warming, there is a massivie body of scientifica evidence that says it will cause Global Catastrophy. The latests international scientific review concluded >90% probability that the observed Climate Change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. There is still much uncertainty, but the potential consequences of not acting are truly horrific.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've come to suspect that people don't reason things to be true; they observe things to be true. It is more akin to intuition. And while reasoning and data influences what appears true to you, it is usually not the only thing that influences it.
As a result, I think you it is usually very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to change a person's mind on the spot using data or logic. Often I've noticed that no matter how logically sound and well-supported an argument is, people who start out not believing the conclusions will usually still not believe it after hearing the argument. Instead they have to come around to seeing it as true for themselves.
So, I suspect "convincing with data and/or reasoning" is not really the best way to go if you want to change my mind, or anyone's mind. I think it would be more effective to set an example for me or to help me experience something that will alter my perspective, so that I can see for myself that I am wrong. For instance, if you wanted to convince me to donate more to the poor, don't give me statistics about poverty. Instead, take me to see the effects of poverty, or set an example yourself by donating.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you'll note, Rabbit, I stated that, "as you describe it" the Precautionary Principle is false. Of course, if you add certain qualifiers onto it, it becomes more plausible, which the articles you link to add on.
However, I still don't think it's a particularly well-formed principle. It's impossible to actually apply it, since it sets no measurements as to when the level of uncertainty is low enough or the level of danger is high enough to warrant action. So, basically, it boils down to saying that "when it's somewhat likely that something really bad could happen, it's probably a good idea in most cases to try to prevent the bad thing."
This is what we call "hand-waving" in philosophy.
Now, I'd like to address your silly stop sign example, because, as I mentioned up-thread, you can't reason by analogy when the situations aren't analogous.
First, there needs to be no study done to make it clear that running stop signs endangers lives. Anyone who has ever been coming up to a stop sign, and seen people crossing the street in front of them knows that, should they choose to run the stop sign at that point, someone could be killed or injured. I also, surprisingly, don't require studies done to prove that when I let go of something, it'll drop to the floor. The reason why I can be certain of this is that stop signs have existed for a long time, and the behavior we apply to stop signs has existed codified for a long time. It isn't a new situation, while (man-made) global warming certainly is. Not analogous.
Second, I also need no evidence that the "stop sign problem", whatever that might be, could be fixed by some new technology. That's because the stop sign is our technology in the first place. Society created the stop sign and the rules around it as a way to keep order in the traffic on our roads. Certainly, we may come up with a new solution - indeed, we're at a technological level that we theoretically could install monitors in all cars that could electronically signal to each other and pedestrians when to go, ending the use of stop signs. Or we could make pedestrian bridges at every intersection. Or any other multitude of things that would solve the dreaded "stop sign problem." We don't do this because the current rule that we made up works pretty well, and there's no need to change it. Again, to hammer the point across: global warming and stop signs are only similar in that they're man-made. One is a problem, and one is the solution to a problem. Not analogous.
Third, if I stop at a stop sign that has people crossing at it, I'm demonstrably not killing people that would be killed if I ran through the stop sign. Even if other people run stop signs, I've saved those lives by not running that particular stop sign. But with global warming we're in a situation where the tragedy of the commons rears its ugly head. If the US were to completely stop consuming X amount of oil, that doesn't mean that the world wouldn't see the pollution effects of that X amount of oil. Instead, the price of oil would drop by some amount, and other countries would buy the oil and use it. So: with stop signs, if I obey them, there's demonstrable good; with global warming, unless everyone takes action, the problem isn't necessarily solved. Not analogous.
Now, these are only three of the possibly millions of ways that stop signs and global warming are fundamentally not analogous. So the two are not relevant in the way you are trying to make them be. When things are fundamentally not relevant in the argument you're making, but you still try to reason by analogy, this is called a false analogy and is a logical fallacy. Which, to anyone interested in meaningful debate, is a bad thing. Generally, I'd suggest you not try to reason by analogy, since it will very rarely work, and any good debater will call you out on it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Rabbit: Much of what you have said on this topic has swayed me a great deal though I never acknowledged it.
Would it be unreasonable for skeptics of global warming to require evidence along the lines of,
Scientists being able, to a reasonable degree, predict climate trends over a period of 10 years, 20 years being better.
I don't know, what would you consider reasonably predict? If you are asking for scientists to reasonably predict the next 10 to 20 years of climate before we do anything then I'd say thats unreasoble since the current prediction indicate we are already 10 to 20 years behind in combating climate change. That would also be unreasonable since no one can predict how human activity will change over the next 10 to 20 years. The rate at which developing nations industrialize will have a significant impact as will whether or not Americans decide to drive compact cars of gas guzzling SUV. Add in other unpredictable factors like volcanoes, wars and so forth and you can see that being able to predict the climate for 10 to 20 years in the future depends on alot more than the validity of the greenhouse theories. Those big unknowns, however, will only change whether the catastrophy happens in 20 years or 40 years. They won't change the underlying principle.
If you are willing to accept predicing the past 10 to 20 years, then I'd say the science is there. Right now climate models are able to accurately predict the climate change we have observed over the past half century. That means that if you use ~1960 for the starting point of the models, and you include the known changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, solar irradiation, volcanic eruptions etc. in the models, they get an outcome that is very close to what has actually happened over the past 50 years.
Perhaps more significantly, 30 years ago climate change scientists were predicting that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere would cause Global Warming even though no Global warming had been observed. Heck the first predictions of this were made over a century ago. Those prediction only match what's happened qualitatively. But they did get the trend right.
Its very easy to get the impression from the media hype that Global Warming is a very recent scientific theory. Its easy to get the impression that we had a couple of hot summers and scientists started to ask why? That isn't how it happened. Over a century ago, it was predicted that burning fossil fuels would cause global warming. For the 60 years scientistst have been measuring increases in the CO2 levels in our atmosphere. For over 3 decades, there has been a concerted effort to model the changes we are making in the atmosphere. During the past decade, it has become evident that the global climate is changing in ways that a consistent with the scientific theory.
When I first started following the scientific literature on this in the mid 80s, one of the big questions was why the planet hadn't warmed significantly despite the rising levels of green house gases. Scientists found the answer to that question. Particulate air pollution was countering the greenhouse effect and they predicted that the greenhouse effect would soon over take the particulate effect. That has in fact happened.
Over the past 25 years the question in Climate Change research has shifted from "Why aren't we seeing the changes our models have predicted" to "We are now seeing signifcant changes in the climate, can we verify that these are the result of the greenhouse effect".
Predictions scientists made before I first started studying this field in the mid 80s are happening. They didn't get the exact amount of warming right but they got the trend right. I call that pretty good prediction for a system as complex as the earth's climate.
Understood. Thanks for the extensive reply.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jhai, I think in this case it boils down to 'when there is large scientific evidence that our actions can negatively impact planetary climate, it's certainly wise to try and prevent this impact.'
Maybe I don't understand "hand-waving," but this seems like a reasonable and informed statement to me.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too would rather go back to the basic question instead of turning this into yet another "Global Climate Change" thread. I find the idea of "What will make you change your mind" a much more interesting question.
I live on a philosophy of "An Open Mind is the key to finding the answers." It does not take much for me to change my mind--reasonable proof over a reasonable argument. I admit I have been caught in simply falling for a good story over good evidence, but I try to be aware of that fallacy.
For everyone it boils down to how the human brain works. As we discover more, we learn more about how decisions are made. From infants we have learned that all decisions are really, basically, trial and error. We keep trying to make sounds until those around us let us know the sounds we are making are words. We keep focusing our eyes differently until we realize how the images coming into our brain correlate to objects around us.
Language, oral and later written, have allowed us to rely on the trials and errors of others. Hemlock, bad in a salad. Cashmere, good for sweaters. (Of course, we only learn to rely on this oral and written wisdom once we have proven to ourselves that it is trustworthy. Childhood is a continuous testing of that idea--is Momma's wisdom better than trying it for myself? We can get into the whole problem of adolescents as "I've learned to trust Dad's wisdom, but its not perfect, so who do I trust now" on another thread)
The problem with trial and error is that it leaves a large bias toward the proven. If you don't know if the yellow starred fruit will kill you if you eat it, you don't eat it unless there is absolutely nothing else around to eat.
Hence we all have a bias for believing in the status quo.
If your lifestyle has been normal all your life, and the weather has been normal all your life, you are biased not to want to change one out of fear that the other is changing.
If you have been going to the Presbyterian church for 20 years, know its routines, its people, its rituals, then you really are not motivated to look at changing just because two guys in nice suits knock at your door and tell you that it is not the right religion.
Or because of some rude kid on the internet says "God is dumb", even if its in all caps, and followed by 23 exclamation points.
What everyone needs to do on all major decisions, is check and see where there opinions come from. Is it from reason and logic? Is it truly from divine faith? Or do we use these as crutches to cover our biases.
Are we just to scared and lazy to consider the alternative?
Even the "Global Warming" advocates need to consider if their reliance on the scientific community is well founded, or if its just a safe answer, since that community has given us good, reliable answers in the past, we assume they will continue to do so in the future.
(I do believe in the science. The Scientific Method is a way of distancing ourselves from bias as much as humanly possible. Despite what some radio talk show hot heads say, nobody wants Global Climate Change to happen.)
Now for my theory of Global Warming. I'm just surprised that I haven't heard this coming out of the Ridiculous Christian Right. (That is different than the normal Christian Right. The Ridiculous Christian Right are nutjobs who like to burn books, burn Dowling in effigy, and blame hurricanes on homosexuals):
Its hell getting closer to earth.
Hell is getting closer to earth because of all the sinning that is going on.
There are many kinds of sin, but we all know the important one is Sex.
The rise of the Global Warming debate corresponds with the Sexual Revolution and the rise of women's rights and sexual freedom.
The only way to stop Global Warming is to reduce sin while cooling the earth with some time of, well, coldness.
We need more Frigid women. As these females have become obsolete, more and more women have gotten Hot. This has increased sin among us poor uncontrollable men. Bring back more Frigid women and the world will cool back down.
But wait.
I'm in the Christian part of the world. Such Frigidity might work in the Muslim world, who share with Christianity their views of Hell and sex. But the Evangelical Christian world has the saving grace of the Second Coming.
When the world is seduced completely by sin, and Hell is about to take over, then Jesus Christ will return and all will be perfect.
So in order to expedite the return of Jesus, we need more Hot women, and more sinning. Come on my friends, lets heat up the globe!!!
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: Jhai, I think in this case it boils down to 'when there is large scientific evidence that our actions can negatively impact planetary climate, it's certainly wise to try and prevent this impact.'
Maybe I don't understand "hand-waving," but this seems like a reasonable and informed statement to me.
From a philosophical standpoint, problem is that, at this point, it's not longer a principle, but a principle applied to a particular situation, in this case global warming. But in order to apply a principle, you have to first have a useful principle. The principle being quoted doesn't have any philosophical meat to it - it's just general common sense, and doesn't help solve the very real philosophical problems that the question of "What should we do?" brings up.
From a practical standpoint, the principle doesn't answer some very fundamental questions of like when should we act, why this situation and not that one, how much should we commit, etc. In talking to people who label themselves environmentalists, I've found a lot don't recognize, or are unwilling to recognize that trade-offs exist. If we spend $2 billion to substitute clean energy for polluting, that's $2 billion that can't go towards feeding the hungry, or towards cancer research, or towards developing cheap sources of clean energy. Those are real, significant costs, and it's not clear to me that solving a potential problem is worth it.
Tresopax, Dan, thanks for considering the initial question in the post, rather than my (apparently incredibly controversial) example. I think it's a particularly interesting question when applied to oneself: if there's nothing that would make you budge your mind on a subject, then I think that raises real questions. Unless the stance develops from very fundamental ethical beliefs, it might be that one needs to reexamine one's thinking.
I wonder if it'd be valuable to ask this question of your opponent in a formal debate. I feel like a lot of religion threads could be shortened in this manner. Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Those are real, significant costs, and it's not clear to me that solving a potential problem is worth it.
This, IMO, is a very short-sighted viewpoint. Maybe since there isn't a dollar value for the loss of biodiversity, or a specific dollar value on a loss of climatic stability, they don't register as "real, significant costs." But they are costs, and someone will be paying for them in the future.
You are speaking of trade-offs, and how those urging for better environmental regulation be aware of the direct costs of their policies, but I see it as you, the resistor and persistent skeptic, not acknowledging or not wanting to acknowledge the dramatic costs of inaction.
On one hand, there is business-as-usual until we have better data. This BAU may lead us into irreversible, dramatic consequences. Sure, we'll have more money for other things, but we're saying that we don't think the potential, and increasingly more probable, impacts are worth our time or our money today.
On the other hand, there's a realization that inaction is a foolishly naive choice, and an acceptance of the far-reaching impacts of our policies today. We may not see them before the current generation dies, but our grandchildren certainly will. Does the cost to them not mean as much as the cost to us?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, modern economists don't care about their children, didntchaknow? Ramsey was the last of a dying breed.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I'll switch to the original question.
I think a large part of the decision making process, and how we establish what we believe ourselves, in how we define the scope of the world around us.
If someone doesn't have children, and has no plans for children, then their view of the world and all the implications of their decisions is probably limited to their own lifetimes. "I don't care if [whatever] ceases to exists after I die, as long as I can see or experience it before it goes."
If someone has children, plans to have children, or has more vested interest in the human species/community, then they are more willing to plan for and change their minds about what is right and what is wrong. Someone may be a partier and a drinker, but if they get married and have kids, they see the world differently. "A parent to drinks and parties will not be able to provide fully for their children. I'll stop drinking and partying."
The scoping applies to religious debates as well. If someone believes that there is a plan for all of us ordained by god, then we don't have to worry as much, we will be taken care of by god. If someone believes that there isn't a plan for all of us, then we worry much more about our decisions and the implications of them. If someone believes that there is an afterlife, it matters little what they do now, other than to get them into the good afterlife. If someone believes that there isn't an afterlife, than the entire scope of their existence changes, and so does their decision making process.
And for these religious debates, if someone believes in the god-plan scope, anyone trying to argue otherwise simply cannot have evidence to change that person's mind.
quote: What everyone needs to do on all major decisions, is check and see where there opinions come from. Is it from reason and logic? Is it truly from divine faith? Or do we use these as crutches to cover our biases.
Are we just to scared and lazy to consider the alternative?
quote:In talking to people who label themselves environmentalists, I've found a lot don't recognize, or are unwilling to recognize that trade-offs exist. If we spend $2 billion to substitute clean energy for polluting, that's $2 billion that can't go towards feeding the hungry, or towards cancer research, or towards developing cheap sources of clean energy.
Or perhaps its 2 billion that can't go to buying new iPods, getting the latest video game, driving Hummers, luxury vactions or eating at fancy Restaurants. Certainly there are trade offs, certainly there are sacrifices to be made, but to imply this is a choice between feeding the hungry and combatting climate change ignores the very real fact that this is one of the most affluent societies that has every existed.
We can do much of this by giving up luxuries that most of us didn't even imagine having as recently as 20 years ago. As I pointed out earlier, we in the US could give up 10% of our GDP (1.3 trillion dollars a year) and still have a per capita GDP higher than countries like Germany, Japan, Canada and Australia. It is ludacrous to suggest that we must choose between combatting climate change and feeding the poor. We must choose between climate change and doing something else with the resources but there are plenty of things we can sacrifice besides the poor and hungry.
quote:This is what we call "hand-waving" in philosophy.
Would you at least both reading some of the philosphical discouses on the principle before making such a judgement or are you engaging in "hand-waving" rejection of philosphy?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I've come to suspect that people don't reason things to be true; they observe things to be true. And while reasoning and data influences what appears true to you, it is usually not the only thing that influences it.
True, but history shows us that 99 times out of 100, using reasoning and data yields the best answer, so people can try to use reasoning and evidence as much as possible, and make sure that they are doing this by checking with other people to see if their reasoning and logic holds up.
quote:As a result, I think you it is usually very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to change a person's mind on the spot using data or logic.
Actually, it's not hard if that person is actaully basing their notions on what the logic and evidence says. In that case, one is obliged to adjust one's notions in accordance with whatever reasoning and evidenc can be brought to bear.
When one combines that with knowledge of the inescapable fact that humans make mistakes, and that humans are not particularly good and correcting their own mistakes, then looking at outside criticism is pretty much the best way of determining if you've made an error.
This is not the default way of thinking for most, but I think it's a mistake to claim that no one is capable of thinking like this most of the time, or claiming that no one tries to think this way.
quote:Often I've noticed that no matter how logically sound and well-supported an argument is, people who start out not believing the conclusions will usually still not believe it after hearing the argument.
Yeah, it's how the human brain is wired. People tend to tune out arguments and evidence that disagrees with their conclusions.
That's why people have to struggle with themselves to think rigorously, and that's why others have to hold them to those standards if all parties are to have a reasoned, evidenced debate.
quote:Instead they have to come around to seeing it as true for themselves.
But this pretty much doesn't happen, unless the argument being made is such that the person will feel it when their notion is proved wrong. And even then, people's guts are stubborn. They fall for what the head would identify as logical fallacies.
quote:So, I suspect "convincing with data and/or reasoning" is not really the best way to go if you want to change my mind, or anyone's mind.
We'll keep that in mind.
quote:I think it would be more effective to set an example for me or to help me experience something that will alter my perspective, so that I can see for myself that I am wrong.
So you think that, for instance, showing fossils to Creationists will change their mind? Giving them primary data on radioactive decay, and walking them through the calculations to gauge the age of a sample?
You give these demonstrations to 10,000 Creationists, how many do you think will change their mind? 10? 1?
You know the one about the racist thinks that all black people are lazy and stupid, except for his friend, who is the exception? Do you think that there is a limit to how many exceptions such a person will acknowldge to his rule?
How many people lose thousands at roulette, and still think they have a winning strategy?
The human mind is resistant to change. The only thing that works reliably is being rigorous. So the thing to do is to make all parties accept that being rigorous is the way to go.
quote:For instance, if you wanted to convince me to donate more to the poor, don't give me statistics about poverty. Instead, take me to see the effects of poverty, or set an example yourself by donating.
So if your neighbors set the example of jumping off a bridge, you'd be convinced that it was a good idea?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly we could spend less money on luxuries. I think that Peter Singer's argument on this subject, while not without its own flaws (problems with aggregation), suggests that we all should be giving far more, and having less in the way of luxuries. However, I doubt that most people are willing to give up too much. Maybe 10%, maybe even 20%, but certainly not enough to solve all the problems out there that need to be solved. So, again: scarcities. On the margin, if it's a question towards sending money to Oxfam, and sending money to global warming organizations, I'm always going to go with the former. You may disagree with me, but I don't think that my position can be just be dismissed out of hand as unethical, as you did in your first post.
I actually did read all of the articles you linked to regarding the precautionary principle, and did some googling on my own. But I've run across similar "principles" in my study of philosophy - I specialized in applied ethics - that really don't amount to much.
To appease you, I just ran a JSTOR search of philosophy articles, which came up with all of 6 results for "precautionary principle", 4 of which were conference proceedings, a (different) 4 of which were critical on the exact vagueness I mentioned, and one result mentions the book The Precationary Principle: A Critical Appraisal which, judging from the Amazon reviews, also appears to be critical of the principle. In case you're wondering, JSTOR has 27 philosophy journals, including all the top ones.
Unless you believe professional philosophers are involved in a vast conspiracy against this principle, I'd say that it's just not considered a particularly good principle by the professionals in the field. There's just a lot of crappy "applied ethics" floating out there, especially in this post-Enron age.
edit: this is in response to Rabbit.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
What are the things that would convince you to change your mind on a topic? For what topics does nothing exist?
Well, in the case of God, if a disembodied voice talked to me on a regular basis (and sounded like an external sound), correctly predicted future events in his or her conversations with me, and did things like lighting fires or hitting me after telling me he or she would, I'd be convinced that I was in the presence of a real creature that I should take seriously. I don't know what external evidence could convince me I was in the presence of the creator of everything.
The relative paucity of miraculous events makes me think God doesn't want it to be easy to find him, which in turn suggests that he's just being a tease. Really, God ought to be doing things every day, like in that "Hell is the Absence of God" story, if he wants to be straight with us about his rules.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had to go google that story. Ah, Ted Chiang is a fabulous writer. I agree with, by the way, Omega, in that I'm very uncertain what could move me from incredibly powerful being to creator of everything. I think if it showed the ability to do lots of cataclysmic things (like move stars), or wildly disobey the laws of the universe, I'd agree that it at least could have created the universe, and just take its word about it.
Perfect goodness would be difficult to prove, I think.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And explain to me why we should spend money towards fixing global warming (even if we aren't sure we can) when we don't spend money towards those other potential dangers.
quote:In talking to people who label themselves environmentalists, I've found a lot don't recognize, or are unwilling to recognize that trade-offs exist. If we spend $2 billion to substitute clean energy for polluting, that's $2 billion that can't go towards feeding the hungry, or towards cancer research, or towards developing cheap sources of clean energy.
That doesn't jive with me. The $2 billion spent on renewable energy or energy conservation isn't a gift, it's an investment. For a lot of the technologies involved, spending $2 billion or what not on new energy technology means you'll get that money and maybe more, depending on the tech, back in the future. If I spent $2 billion to buy everyone in the country LED lights on the condition that they pay me back all the money they wouldn't have spent on new lights and from lower electric bills, I'm going to get my money back and more, and that works for a lot of technologies too, like wind and solar, that as they ramp up are reachinge energy parity with coal, and also don't have to be fueled. The list goes on...
You're presenting it as an either/or debate, which I don't think is fair or correct. The billions being poured into renewables right now aren't coming out of charity, they're coming from businesses that see a profit in their future.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the question at the beginning, what would make me change my position, well, as a generic question I can't say there's a single answer. It'd take some good data, or if it's some sort of moral argument, I suppose the argument would change from issue to issue, there's no one set of criteria that I'd have. I believe in God, though not a specific religion, it'd take God himself telling me that one was right. For global warming, it'd take probably something like Rabbit's requirements to get me to go the other way. It depends on if we're talking about a scientific issue or a moral one.
This is a harder question than I thought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, by "$2 billion to substitute clean energy for polluting", I meant exactly that. Not investing in technologies, but spending extra money to get our energy right now from sources that are cleaner. Paying an extra dollar for a watt of electricity, because it comes from wind rather than oil or coal. That's not an investment; it's a consumption substitution.
In this thread I'm reacting to those global warming pundits who say that we need. to. change. right. now. I disagree with that position - that we need to, say, drop oil consumption by 50% very soon in order to stave off worldwide collapse, and this matters more than anything else. I'm perfectly willing to invest in renewable energy technology; in fact, that would fall under my "new technology that will solve the problem in the future" premise.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Paying an extra dollar for a watt of electricity, because it comes from wind rather than oil or coal. That's not an investment; it's a consumption substitution.
It is an investment. It's choosing to pay now for electricity that does not pollute, and therefore damage, our atmosphere, planet, etc. What your argument is not doing is looking at the lifecycle of the energy. Wind power produces no emissions. It will not degrade our atmosphere. Coal comes from a pool of carbon in our ground and puts it into the atmosphere, damaging the atmosphere, and eventually costing us real money to fix it.
It's not an investment in the sense that you'll get a defined amount of money in a set number of years, but it is absolutely an investment.
I don't mean to keep harping on this issue, but I feel like your not getting the argument.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
By investment, I just meant it's not an investment in the technologies that Lyrhawn was describing in his post. As in, it's not an investment by the economic meaning of the term.
I get the environmental argument, White Whale - heck, I grew up in coastal California. I've taken an environmental ethics course, as well as a philosophy of economics course.
1) Scarcity exists - we cannot solve all problems 2) There is no scientific consensus that we can greatly affect the process of global warming. Moreover, there's no political/sociological reason to believe that the world will be able to coordinate any solution. As long as cheap polluting energies are out there, countries such as China and India will use them.
The coordination issue is also a major concern. Even if we'd like to do it, solving problems where there's a tragedy of the commons are very difficult. For example, every heavy monsoon, India opens up its dams to let water out of the Ganges, in order to prevent flooding along the riverbanks. The water flows right out of India and into Bangladesh, where it typically wreaks havoc on the delta country. I'm sure India doesn't like doing this to Bangladesh, and they do send aid when it happens. On the whole, though, India would rather have it happen to Bangladesh than itself. Even though, from an objective viewpoint, it'd be better if India allowed itself to flood, since it's much wealthier than Bangladesh, and can generally coordinate evacuations and refugee help better.
Why should I expect India to do act any better towards its neighboring country when the issue is global warming and pollution? Especially when the effect of pollution is less immediate, is less traceable to a particular country (so India doesn't feel as much like the guilty party), and is certainly less visible than tons of raging water coming down a river.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:2) There is no scientific consensus that we can greatly affect the process of global warming.
I'm sorry Jhai, but this is factually incorrect. Read the IPCC report. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that we can greatly affect the process of global warming. When you make claims like this, you demonstrate that you are both uninformed and misinformed regarding the state of climate change science.
quote:Moreover, there's no political/sociological reason to believe that the world will be able to coordinate any solution. As long as cheap polluting energies are out there, countries such as China and India will use them.
The argument is a red herring. Right now China and India are at the negotiating table. They have signed the Kyoto protocol. There are only 3 countries in the world that haven't signed the Kyoto treaty, the US, Australia and Kazhakhstan. Right now, the US is the number one barrier to building a global consensus on combating climate change. We may never be able to get everyone in the world to comply with a plan, but right now We are the major contributor to the problem and one of only 3 countries that won't participate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that we can affect the process of a thing does not mean that we can affect the final outcome. And I don't believe that my argument is a red herring. Saying you're willing to talk is not the same thing as action. There are no examples of worldwide progress on any issue as large as global warming. We can't even get the Doha trade talks anywhere, despite the fact that free trade will lead to long-term positives, with much less short-term pain than the fight against global warming.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, without US opposition to keep it such a hot button issue, I doubt most countries would make even the movement they have on the issue. It is an easy way to score political points in large part because of how it situates a supporter in relationship to the US.
Just something to think about.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief, Jhai, you're demanding proof as strong as Omegabyte's miracles and preCambrian rabbit fossils. Just say "Better that billions die than admit I could ever be wrong" and be done with it.
quote:you still try to reason by analogy, this is called a false analogy and is a logical fallacy.
A person can include analogy in an argument and this does not automatically make it a logical fallacy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When things are fundamentally not relevant in the argument you're making, but you still try to reason by analogy, this is called a false analogy and is a logical fallacy.
Certainly, you can reason by analogy and have it not be a logical fallacy. The three paragraphs preceding the sentence you quoted show that the argument being made by Rabbit fell onto the "false analogy" side of the fence.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Paying an extra dollar for a watt of electricity, because it comes from wind rather than oil or coal. That's not an investment; it's a consumption substitution.
It is an investment. It's choosing to pay now for electricity that does not pollute, and therefore damage, our atmosphere, planet, etc. What your argument is not doing is looking at the lifecycle of the energy. Wind power produces no emissions. It will not degrade our atmosphere. Coal comes from a pool of carbon in our ground and puts it into the atmosphere, damaging the atmosphere, and eventually costing us real money to fix it.
It's not an investment in the sense that you'll get a defined amount of money in a set number of years, but it is absolutely an investment.
I don't mean to keep harping on this issue, but I feel like your not getting the argument.
I'm not sure I agree. If renewables replace coal entirely, in the near term anyways, it will be because renewables have been made cheaper than coal, at which point regardless of the global climate change issue they would be used anyway because from a purely economic point of view, the cheapest form of energy is always going to be the most preferable. But at the rate our energy demands are spiking, and with the advent of real electric cars, we're going to need a lot of power (though maybe not THAT much, depends on which reports you read). Plus coal fired plants don't last forever. The point is, until very recently we've been building dozens of new coal plants all over the country. If we were to instead replace those with renewables, it would still be an investment. It's going to be a decade before production can really ramp up to the level you're talking, of outright replacing working coal plants. And even then it won't be a waste of money in the sense you're talking about, because old plants will need to be replaced, and as they come offline, renewables will be there to take their place. A lot of those plants are only designed to work for 20 or 30 years, which still puts us on par to drastically reduce our emissions before the deadline. The point is to do the starting phase now, do the stuff that technology allows for now, and then as other stuff fits into the mold we implement it as we can.
There's billions already being spent on it, and that money isn't coming from an altruistic government, it's coming from profit driven businesses. So, I don't know what this means for your burden of proof, but I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, Wall Street and Silicon Valley do too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess this was a global warming thread masquerading as something else.
Just to answer the original question: My father was a very succesful chemist at IBM. Had a lot of important inventions, including the C-4 process for surface mounting chips on a ceramic substrate. He knew a fair amount about ceramics.
He also told me that glass is a "super cooled liquid" that is highly visous and flows very slowly over long periods of time.
When I worked in combustion, a guy (another technician) told me that this is a fallacy, and that glass is completely solid. I didn't believe him. But I can remember the cognitive dissonance that I went through as I tried to find evidence that backed up the "fact" that glass is a liquid. I had a lot of emotional investment, because I loved my father very much, and he died when I was 14. I didn't want to stain his memory by calling him wrong. But every argument in support of my position was refuted, and ultimately I had to admit that my father was wrong, and that I had gone along with it.
That's just one example from my life. I've been wrong about a lot of things, but ultimately, I care about intellectual honesty, and the only way to acheive that is to admit when you're proven wrong.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=13756 Tk 1200 per month is around US$0.60 / 60UScents per day. Yet they think of themselves as having enough extra to help those worse off than themselves.
In the manner that you are using the term, Jhai, scarcity is just a lie folks con themselves into believing so they don't hafta feel guilty about squandering vast amounts of resources on garbage that no sane person would want in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You know, without US opposition to keep it such a hot button issue, I doubt most countries would make even the movement they have on the issue. It is an easy way to score political points in large part because of how it situates a supporter in relationship to the US.
Just something to think about.
I think this is false in the extreme.
For the first part: Take Australia - for 10 years (since Kyoto) climate change was basically a non-issue. Our government agreed with the US position, but our opposition didn't really challenge it, or try to score political points of the US non-ratification.
Now, it did become a hot button issue at our federal election last week (and our new government has promised to ratify Kyoto) but I think that is because there is now a growing global awareness of the reality of climate change. And here in Australia we are seeing the proof - the country is in a record breaking drought, farm failure, rural depression and suicide are at a high. We all see and feel the cost and that is why we voted the way we did.
Secondly: What do you mean "I doubt most countries would make even the movement they have on the issue"?
Most of the countries in the world *have* ratified Kyoto, regardless of the US's lack of doing so (just like the Convention on the Rights of the Child). That means they are bound by their treaty obligations - their movement was made when they ratified.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Approving Kyoto has been remarkably anticlimactic. The measures many countries have put in place have been lackluster, or badly managed, or both (see the carbon credits attempts in the EU). Few if any countries are coming anywhere near meeting the obligations they signed up for.
As far as being bound by their treaty obligations, while that is something, I know you know how little that can mean when it becomes politically inconvenient. For instance, major countries in the european common currency routinely (and are currently) violate the requirements on their economies, rarely with any fallout.
I'm somewhat bemused at what you say swayed Australia. We've known humans can influence climate change on that scale for quite some time (dust storms in the US?), and the changes you list are most likely unrelated to global warming.
Additionally, while it is probably not Australia's reason, take a look at the rhetoric surrounding global warming legislation in the EU, and in China.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Few if any countries are coming anywhere near meeting the obligations they signed up for.
Most of the major industrialized nations are pretty far behind in their goals, though the majority of them have at least made some progress. Much of Northern Europe, if I'm remembering correctly, is on track to either meet or come very close to meeting their goals. And some other small countries are close to hitting theirs too, but for the most part the major industrial powers of the world aren't even close.
But then, I have to wonder how much of that progress is because of the lack of India, China, and the US's participation. I think if everyone was serious about it, and there was a world carbon trading system, and they ironed out the kinks (they need to not give away so many for free, it not only defeats the purpose, it almost makes it worse, and many other issues) then everyone would be a lot better off. Much of the opposition in Europe, the US and elsewhere is that all our efforts are useless if the world's biggest polluter, now China, and countries like India that aren't far behind aren't included, as all we'll really be doing is fighting to keep the status quo, which won't solve the problem, it'll just stave off having it spiral out of control.
I'm extremely interested to see what comes out of the Bali meeting. I think it'd be better if they pushed it back a year and waited for the US to get a new president, but I can tell you that including China and India is going to be essential. At best they'll get everyone except the three of us to sign on a again, and then the US will follow up in a year or so with a watered down version (unless by some miracle Lieberman's emissions control act passes Congress next week, but Pres. Bush will just veto it anyway).
I'm wondering if they'll play around with some sort of technology sharing agreement to help India and China, and maybe a tiered system for developing countries, but given China's boom and all the money they have, I'd be surprised if that really sated a lot of people. We'll see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, glass does flow very slowly over long periods of time. You see it in old houses; the windowpanes will be noticeably thicker at the bottom.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=13756 Tk 1200 per month is around US$0.60 / 6OUScents per day. Yet they think of themselves as having enough extra to help those worse off than themselves.
In the manner that you are using the term, Jhai, scarcity is just a lie folks con themselves into believing so they don't hafta feel guilty about squandering vast amounts of resources on garbage that no sane person would want in the first place.
I don't disagree that people should donate far more than they do. You'll note that I mentioned Peter Singer's argument for donating far more than Westerners typically do up-thread.
Abhi and I donate significant amounts every year to programs that go towards providing children in India with food, medical attention, and schooling. And I live a very environmental-friendly life. I walk to work and the grocery store, use reusable bags for groceries (or recycle plastic bags), recycle everything that can be in our area, use rechargeable batteries, etc. I rarely buy anything other than food or work supplies (notebooks, paper, pens). In fact, except for Black Friday (where I bought baby presents for sister-in-law in India and Serenity & Firefly dvds), I haven't bought any significant non-consumable in the past three months.
However, I don't believe that other people will behave in a similar environmentally-responsible manner. Some because they can't, some because they won't. Similarily, I don't think that most people will be willing to give up enough to significantly cramp their lifestyles. So the scarcity exists because most people will not donate much more than 10 or 20% of their income. Given that fact, I think that saving starving children is more important than global warming. It's just like the issue with coordination among countries on the issue of global warming - I think it'd be fine if they all sat down, agreed to make significant long-term changes, and then actually went through with it, but I'm not going to hold my breathe on it happening.
And, Glenn, this thread wasn't meant as a global warming thread, but who am I to hate on thread drift?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard both -- that it does and that it doesn't.
The old houses with glass thicker on the bottom then the top always seem to have hand-blown glass in the windows, which isn't uniform like machine-made glass. I've heard that when they put such panes in they purposely put the thicker side on the bottom, but I can't remember the reason for that.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
