tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post8843440407749554380..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Who wants to maintain clocks?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37970078842947475942012-06-01T10:31:20.784-04:002012-06-01T10:31:20.784-04:00Once I learned the proposed carbon exchange was to...Once I learned the proposed carbon exchange was to function as a more chi chi version of the stock exchange but also make vast sums of money, the veil was lifted. I enjoyed every word of this piece because smug condescension towards anyone who asks a few pointed questions rules the day.Liverpoolgirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03189249201457551804noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35020070934827368212012-05-15T02:35:57.327-04:002012-05-15T02:35:57.327-04:00Oh. And I don't like coffee. Sorry.Oh. And I don't like coffee. Sorry.Yannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225021433431403808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-85433334803424589842012-05-15T02:30:38.914-04:002012-05-15T02:30:38.914-04:00If I didn't know better, I would think that Ma...If I didn't know better, I would think that Massimo and Greg are using us as guinea pigs. They know that the regular readers of his blog will tend to be the type of people that is aware of the problems that global climate change is going to bring, and are also aware of the timing of them (i.e. much faster than most evolutionary processes). <br />Therefore this article is here to provoke a Condorcetean dialogue (similar to the parapsychology article). While I like the discussion of the points, I may get tired of the gimmick if it continues to be applied in a "wink-wink" kind of way (Tricked you audience, you see, we all have cognitive biases and prejudices and stuff, you have to be more aware of them, etc). I feel it would be better if you just came out saying it out loud, although I understand that it would take out a lot of efficacy from it (it would convert the post into a "I'm going to troll you suckers" which is not as interesting as the current mechanism). As long as you don't do it too frequently, then it should be ok, but it won't be as fun.<br />My only complaint is that I feel that this article is a lot less supported than the parapsychology one. Using the "gods of the gaps" argument as your sole argumentation is somewhat weak. Most of the times you can reductio it very nicely to absurdum (yeah, lets provoke a third world war. You don't know that is going to be bad. The scientific advances that it would bring could balance the bad of hundreds of thousands of people dying, and the world may end up even better! Yay!). <br />I am sure there are some articles that may support better your arguments than your simple opinions. Mostly I would say that you are trying to resolve an empirical discussion with a philosophical answer, which doesn't work well (and as mentioned above, sadly for the fun of the argument, there is research about the problems that global warming would bring. Stupid scientist with their fun killing science.). The parapsychology article had the advantage that the author took into account that the readers were informed and fought the predictable points of contention before they were presented (which made for an awesome article, even if the premise was wrong).<br /><br />I wonder if Massimo is going to follow it up with an article about how liberals have their biases too (and use our comments as fodder), or how he doesn't agree with this article for x or y or z philosophical reason (like with the parapsychology one). Also there could be other options, which are more Machiavellian...but I don't want to give him any ideas in case he is reading.<br /><br />Therefore the tl;dr version<br />Attempt for Condorcetean discussion. Nice, but don't do it too much.<br />Rating 6-7/10<br />-Pro<br />--Nice selection of topic to tickle both general groups (hell yeah vs He wrote WHAT?, therefore ka-ching views!)<br />-Against<br />--Need more empirical support. Gods of the gaps is not trendy since the 1800s.Yannishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07225021433431403808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79683570091126466722012-05-12T13:27:30.003-04:002012-05-12T13:27:30.003-04:00Exactly. Fuel efficient cars are great, but many ...Exactly. Fuel efficient cars are great, but many of the people who buy them prematurely justify it as a gift to the environment when they are really making things worse. That's what I have a problem with. When a clunker finally breaks down I think it's a positive thing to buy a fuel efficient car (preferably one that isn't a status symbol).<br /><br />I agree with your three ways to minimize environmental impact, albeit I find #1 problematic from a health standpoint. Nonetheless, consuming *less* meat can help an individual balance their concerns for the environment and their health.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88064954073675656932012-05-12T13:27:09.001-04:002012-05-12T13:27:09.001-04:00I think I understand you point, but in my opinion ...I think I understand you point, but in my opinion you are missing a key part: what we are currently doing to the climate is indeed "building a clock that will last 10000 years". We are already doing it, and we better be aware and do something about it.2euclidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06838933537652132199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49374459670727983932012-05-12T13:03:12.085-04:002012-05-12T13:03:12.085-04:00I agree with driving clunkers as long as possible....I agree with driving clunkers as long as possible. It saves money and resources. At some point though the old clunker will give up the ghost and will require replacement. I think the best choice environmentally and economically is to buy the most fuel efficient, smallest you can live with used car and keep it well into clunkerhood.<br /><br />The three most effective ways to minimize your environmental impact other than becoming homeless is 1)to adopt a vegetarian or mostly vegetarian diet, 2)don't have kids or adopt, and 3)live in a small house or apartment.LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57265579835306771822012-05-12T12:57:29.623-04:002012-05-12T12:57:29.623-04:00Sure, let them build their own clocks. While we le...Sure, let them build their own clocks. While we leave them fewer parts to build them with. Meanwhile we can mine, drill, log, fish, and consume resources without care or concern either for future generations or for the fellow earthlings we share this awesome planet with.LCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06230899522753297278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73793660035974425842012-05-12T11:30:31.418-04:002012-05-12T11:30:31.418-04:00In the real world, you could make the case that $&...In the real world, you could make the case that $'s in economic output has increased, even though it's caused warming. The fundamental problem here is that it's near impossible to line up all of the benefits and costs correctly.<br /><br />As for your second point, you might be right, but there are a lot of assumptions baked into your statement that we would need to unpack.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71234496620921297912012-05-12T11:23:32.053-04:002012-05-12T11:23:32.053-04:00That is indeed a false dichotomy, albeit one that ...That is indeed a false dichotomy, albeit one that I'm not proposing.<br /><br />I think we actually agree that economic progress is the key to solving the problem. My point is basically that a lot can happen in 10,000 years. And we humans don't have a great record at predicting the future. Accordingly, we shouldn't worry about wasting massive resources to build "clocks" now so that future generations can maintain them. If things go well for the human race economically, they will be far more capable to build more environmentally friendly clocks than we will.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49910910968807348452012-05-11T08:19:23.228-04:002012-05-11T08:19:23.228-04:00You've made your rhetorical point that you can...You've made your rhetorical point that you can't assume climate change is bad. Back in the real world, however, you need to make the case that global warming of degrees Centigrade has benefits. You can't simply say it's logically possible to be beneficial.<br /><br />And about human evolution: 100 times faster than incredibly slow is still very very slow. There is no way the current human population could evolve a response (and what could that possibly be?) to the current trend of global warming.Mark Ericksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12604074895219791713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32209549107867619642012-05-10T16:46:44.671-04:002012-05-10T16:46:44.671-04:00Have you ever heard of homeostasis? Trying not to ...Have you ever heard of homeostasis? Trying not to change the climate is not about the ideal environment for future generations, but about trying not to upset an extremely delicate (i.e. unstable) balance about which we know next to nothing, except that in its current state we CAN survive. <br /><br />Any change at all is potentially fatal to us, as we have no idea where the balance tips to e.g. a change in the composition of the atmosphere. The tiniest change in the atmosphere can mean immediate extinction to us. Sure, climate has always changed, but for most of the planet's history the atmosphere has actually not been breathable. Do you really want to rely on our evolving to breathe a different gas? <br /><br />To me you sound like a small child who deliberately breaks his toys thinking Daddy will fix it. One day you'll find out that Daddy cannot bring back to life the kitten whose neck you've wrung. Many people believe science will fix it, you are apparently putting your faith in an accelerated evolution. (I'm not even going to start on that one. Yes you can breed domesticated foxes, that doesn't mean we can will our metabolism to evolve.) <br /><br />If change is caused by humans that does not make it bad, it does give us the power to stop causing it. Trying not to bring about the sudden extinction of all mammals seems a good enough reason to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5253489222550138412012-05-10T13:49:48.308-04:002012-05-10T13:49:48.308-04:00> I guess I'm not sure I know what is best,...<i>> I guess I'm not sure I know what is best, and I'm weary of people who think they know.</i><br /><br />On this, we agree. But I'm not in favor of throwing our hands in the air and saying, "Well, whatever, it's too hard to figure out - let's just do what we want and hope it all works out!"<br /><br />Actually, I agree with your last two paragraphs almost completely. I just don't agree with the dichotomous premise of your overarching argument.perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17626093644087199772012-05-10T13:40:01.358-04:002012-05-10T13:40:01.358-04:00> What you seem to be implying is that we have ...<i>> What you seem to be implying is that we have a moral obligation to avoid global warming because it might harm people on the other side of the world. </i><br /><br />Not at all. I have not taken a position other than that we should use our reasoning faculties to evaluate the likely results of our actions as responsibly as possible, without bias toward a preconceived, desired outcome.<br /><br />Incidentally, your phrasing in this instance is constructed in a way that implicitly diminishes the importance of people on the other side of the world. This may or may not have been intended, but I thought I would point it out as subtle cues like that can inform (or possibly misinform) your audience about your core views, since of course nobody is on the other side of the world when the scope of the discussion is the greater good of all of humanity, unless we are operating from a rather self-centered or closely derived coordinate system.<br /><br /><i>> the activities that cause global warming may help humanity on the whole, but they may also cause harm to certain sections of the population. Do we have a moral obligation to cease progress for that reason alone?</i><br /><br />I would say that we have an a priori responsibility to each other and our descendants to evaluate the likely impacts of our actions insofar as we are able and try to maximize overall well-being. But let's examine the question more closely.<br /><br />First off, human-made climate change <i>may</i> help humanity on the whole, but the evidence so far suggests otherwise; therefore, as far as I can tell the question of whether we have a moral obligation to cease activities that drive it in the interest of protecting certain sections of the population <i>in light of this improbable scenario</i> is not very germane to a serious evaluation of the best actions to take in light of the actual situation.<br /><br />In any case, it would be necessary to establish what constitutes the greater good prior to answering that question - a proposition that is tricky enough without artificially promoting lower-order possibilities to higher status in the hierarchy of considerations. I'll grant that the question may be interesting purely in terms of thought experiment, but I don't see any meaningful way to import an answer back to reality. It just seems like a terribly abstracted question for a practical discussion. However, I'll follow your line of thought a bit further.<br /><br /><i>> What if, through economic progress, the activities that cause the global warming raise the standard of living for everyone too. The Pacific Islands might be destroyed (which is a cost), but we would have the wealth and resources to move those affected by it to other areas, thus reducing the amount of overall suffering in the world. Would you be willing to take this trade?</i><br /><br />This broad-stroke scenario demands far more credulity of me than I am able to supply. Supposing that the Pacific Islands became collateral damage in the march of human progress, but that in the process enough wealth were generated to make it <i>possible</i> for all 10 million Pacific Islanders to move to new locations <i>and</i> experience a raised standard of living,<br /><br />(a) Whose standard gets applied here? It had better be their own, or at least heavily weighted in that direction. My experience is that most people who are indigenous to a geographical area - that is, whose ancestral heritage and cultural identity is bound up with it - are neither able nor willing to put a pricetag on their way of life.<br /> <br />(b) On what basis (historically evidenced, predicted by social or economic models, or otherwise) can you possibly advance the view that, even if all of the above could somehow be satisfactorily addressed, the wealth and resources generated would in any event be used to accomplish this massive migration? I think the whole of human history argues against your scenario. We don't proactively move endangered populations out of regions that through human activities have become hostile to them. Why would this be any different?perspiciohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04756832342990830938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40208084532153170012012-05-10T12:58:58.148-04:002012-05-10T12:58:58.148-04:00On the other end you are focusing exclusively on t...On the other end you are focusing exclusively on the costs of fighting global warming and ignoring the benefits. Or is your position that developing an economy based on renewable energy won't have any benefit? I bet that it will produce much more wealth than the current economy based on fossil fuels.<br /><br />I do not know if you are old enough to remember it, but back in the seventies environmental regulations were set to destroy the economy. We were told that we could either have clean air and water or be rich, but we could not have both. Well, guess what, environmental regulations were put in place and the economy did quite well, thank you very much. Now you seem to tell me that we can either fight global warming or rise living standards around the world. Color me skeptical on that dichotomy.2euclidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06838933537652132199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47268198283912193742012-05-10T12:29:36.047-04:002012-05-10T12:29:36.047-04:00"Of course, if all goes to plan, our future d..."Of course, if all goes to plan, our future descendants will be left to maintain it too."<br /><br />As I understand the plan the clock is designed to keep time for 10,000 years without any maintenance. Certain features are designed to interact with people and to attract people, but the basic time keeping function is not supposed to require any maintenance. Of course, each of us can make our own assessment of how likely it is that everything will go according to plan.Jerry Schwarzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17113403820938623979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90429158016363681262012-05-10T10:37:31.311-04:002012-05-10T10:37:31.311-04:00You're focusing exclusively on the costs and i...You're focusing exclusively on the costs and ignoring the benefits though. If we assume that global warming is caused by economic activity we have to factor in the benefits that come from that economic activity too. While it may be making the earth warmer (and thus flood some places), the economic activity may also raise the living standard for people around the world.<br /><br />In the end, you might be right, the costs may outweigh the benefits. However, I think this is a very difficult calculation to make.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64510154612146327422012-05-10T10:20:20.783-04:002012-05-10T10:20:20.783-04:00Chris, that's a fair point about the heroism. ...Chris, that's a fair point about the heroism. Even if the homeless person isn't a hero, they still have a lesser impact though. If having a lesser impact is truly the goal, then aspiring to live more like the homeless should be a noble aim.<br /><br />While the homeless person may not be a true hero at least he's not trying to fake anything. Some people try to look like heroes, while actually making things worse through their conspicuous consumption.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25209339179935876272012-05-10T08:53:51.727-04:002012-05-10T08:53:51.727-04:00Greg, if you are going to post disingenuous questi...Greg, if you are going to post disingenuous questions about climate change on public blogs, especially a blog ostenisbly dedicated to philosophical reasoning, you would do well to study a bit about climate change before you embarrass yourself. Too late for that.<br /><br />Open your eyes and look around. Go to real climate.org and skepticalscience.com and read about the damaging effects of climate change. Climate change has been causing damage for at least three decades, and the rate of change is increasing.Doc Sarvishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04244290701946072473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84810561355036001192012-05-10T08:39:58.496-04:002012-05-10T08:39:58.496-04:00"The homeless person ironically has a lesser ..."The homeless person ironically has a lesser environmental impact than your average yuppie, yet he is rarely recognized as an environmental hero." <br /><br />A hero is someone who makes a choice to do something heroic. If you put a gun to someones head and make them do it they are not a hero. A homeless person is not choosing (presumably) to have less environmental impact. So, they are not an "environmental hero".Chris Carbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10458001230470047172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31431732548799140952012-05-10T05:28:48.824-04:002012-05-10T05:28:48.824-04:00Hm, ok. "Let them build their own clock"...Hm, ok. "Let them build their own clock" didn't sound like advocating responsibility to me - but then I do have a European outlook on things. When I look around I don't see a lot of "conspicious green" consumption, but I do see a lot of people doing the little things (like us getting rid of the second car and walking to work). May not help a lot, but it is also a. not a big deal to do and b. helps the mindshift for the things that will make a bigger difference.chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61562260819907940382012-05-09T22:55:21.889-04:002012-05-09T22:55:21.889-04:00Some of the consequences of global warming that ar...Some of the consequences of global warming that are being predicted are certainly bad. I do not see how the increase in the sea level can be a good thing, given the millions of people that will be affected by it.2euclidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06838933537652132199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24295738986387130222012-05-09T19:05:20.011-04:002012-05-09T19:05:20.011-04:00chbieck, agreed. Whether or not we are being resp...chbieck, agreed. Whether or not we are being responsible presently is a different issue, but the conspicuous environmentalism that often passes as true environmentalism is hurting the cause.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50271377249621087552012-05-09T18:43:30.669-04:002012-05-09T18:43:30.669-04:00The key word is "responsibly". Climate c...The key word is "responsibly". Climate change might not be bad, or it might be very bad, or something in between. But why take the risk? I agree that some of the activism is silly, but business as usual is a very bad percentage play...chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40143939033505671052012-05-09T16:21:46.228-04:002012-05-09T16:21:46.228-04:00How do you know that climate change is going to be...How do you know that climate change is going to be damaging though? Damaging to what and damaging to whom?<br /><br />My message is that it looks like we humans are causing the earth to get a bit warmer. It seems like we should learn to cope and adapt to this reality. I'm not saying we should go out of our way to destroy anything or cause drastic changes, but I don't see anything wrong with responsibly using the earth's resources.Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35236935914610020742012-05-09T16:17:07.678-04:002012-05-09T16:17:07.678-04:00Are you assuming that global warming is always bad...Are you assuming that global warming is always bad? I can't really follow your argument unless you are assuming the answer to that question is "yes".Greg Linsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03671053520742010144noreply@blogger.com