Climate Change

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Sort of a reverse of the "If we can put a man on the Moon, we can [end poverty, stop disease, end hunger, prevent war, ...]?" argument, eh? Since we can't do X, it's not believable that we can do Y.

Mankind was aware that putting a man on the moon will only consume resources. Ending poverty, etc. is an attempt to use resources more efficiently. Just in case you didn't know, wasting resources is easy, but ending up with more than you started with is a HARD problem.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The two are not comparable, of course, because the people (not) doing the first task are politicians and bureaucrats, while the people addessing the second task are engineers and scientists, who are designing plans that will have to be implemented by politicians and bureaucr ... hmmm ... well, there may be something in common after all.

Where is this magic place you speak of? Engineers screw up just as much as politicians. I'm certain that the AMD engineers wanted Phenom to be late. And Intel wanted the P4 to get really hot. The difference is that when AMD goes bust, the engineers will have to find a new job and might have to work for less.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

... and that's why the Dutch have built dikes instead of raising their buildings on stilts?

That's also adaption. The problem is that the North Sea changes water levels. Why didn't they fix that? Also, if the Dutch had efficiently mastered stilts technology, they would be making a killing exporting it to Bangladesh.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

This pessimistic argument fails because it presumes that people cannot (or, perhaps, it might even be intended to persuade people not to) diligently search for and find cost-effective methods of prevention.

Finding cost-effective solutions is a HARD problem. It has nothing to do with not wanting. But the most important thing is that searching for solutions is NOT FREE and the law of diminishing return applies.

So, diverting more resources to something where we don't even know whether the pay-off is positive, is just plain stupid. The only reason why we're doing this is that it takes very little to scare us apes because we suck at evaluating risks properly.

[retina]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

... it takes very little to scare us apes because we suck at evaluating risks properly.

.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by retina

I thought that point 1 was the fallacy. It should be "1. We must do something sensible, reasonable and useful".

The most popular solution is MOST LIKELY not 'sensible, reasonable and useful', since we are talking about voters who aren't even able to tell the difference between 'every vote is counted' and 'every vote counts'.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by retina

.

Obviously our government is trying to kill us by letting us drive. The bastards!

Odds of dying:

Earthquake:  1 in 117127
Hot weather: 1 in 13729
Flood:       1 in 144156

Motor-Vehicle accident: 1 in 84

[AES]

retina, I like the graph. I suppose if one routinely gets intoxicated, falls down, and accidentally discharges a firearm, the elements would be proportioned differently.

...Not that I do those things routinely, or in that order.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by AES

retina, I like the graph. I suppose if one routinely gets intoxicated, falls down, and accidentally discharges a firearm, the elements would be proportioned differently.

I believe that would be the special "red state" version of the same actuarial chart.

[AES]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I believe that would be the special "red state" version of the same actuarial chart.

Well, maybe on race day, or the opening day of deer season.

[MooooMoo]

The debate on global warming isn't only about whether it's real or whether it's caused by humans. We also need to debate whether the cost of reducing or reversing global warming is lower than the cost of business as usual.

This isn't only an economic cost, it's a lifestyle and social cost too. Is preventing global warming as simple as buying a Prius, putting solar panels on your roof, changing old inefficient lightbulbs, and supporting renewable energy? Or, does it require draconian measures like forcing everyone to live in cramped apartments and densely populated places so that most things can be within walking or cycling distance? Do we have to ban or ration meat so that deforestation and emissions can be reduced? Should we let the government control your thermostat to prevent wasted energy? These measures have all been proposed to combat global warming, but thankfully, none of them have been implemented yet.

If the changes needed to slow or stop global warming won't significantly affect our daily lives, then those measures should be taken. But if fighting global warming requires drastic life-changing action, then we should adapt to the warming instead of trying to fight it. I and nearly everyone else would rather prefer relocating to places further above sea level, desalinating ocean water in places predicted to dry up, and enduring hotter summers rather than living in cramped places with a vegan diet. Worse yet, it may turn out that humans play an insignificant role in a world with little climate change, and everyone is stuck living in conditions that resemble the 19th century.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by MooooMoo

The debate on global warming isn't only about whether it's real or whether it's caused by humans. We also need to debate whether the cost of reducing or reversing global warming is lower than the cost of business as usual.

Actually I think it's ONLY about this. As you state, the problem is highly quantitative, and practically everybody with an opinion hasn't bothered to analyze the relevant data with appropriate models, or is too stupid to do so, which leads to the large amounts of intellectual dishonesty & fearmongering we are seeing.

But I think, that for a bunch of apes we're actually doing pretty good, so the 'mankind is evil' conservationists really piss me off. They remind me of the priests in the middle ages, claiming that everybody is a sinner and will likely go to hell unless you give them money (or give them 'green').

Sustainablillity is a bunch of short-sighted nonsense: eventually Sol will blow and everyone who hasn't left Earth will be dead. So, if I model conservationists and pollutants, the pollutants are at least obeying the laws of thermodynamics, so I'm forced to side with them.

[S485122]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Actually I think it's ONLY about this. As you state, the problem is highly quantitative, and practically everybody with an opinion hasn't bothered to analyze the relevant data with appropriate models, or is too stupid to do so, which leads to the large amounts of intellectual dishonesty & fearmongering we are seeing.

But I think, that for a bunch of apes we're actually doing pretty good, so the 'mankind is evil' conservationists really piss me off. They remind me of the priests in the middle ages, claiming that everybody is a sinner and will likely go to hell unless you give them money (or give them 'green').

Sustainablillity is a bunch of short-sighted nonsense: eventually Sol will blow and everyone who hasn't left Earth will be dead. So, if I model conservationists and pollutants, the pollutants are at least obeying the laws of thermodynamics, so I'm forced to side with them.

Is it nonsense or short-sighted to be alarmed when one member of the familly is monthly using 10 % of the familly savings which include quite a lot of inherited money ?

The countries representing 20 % of world population have a good living standard, the rest live in poverty, malnutrition, ill health... But even those proportions should be corrected : there are a lot of people in "rich" countries that live bellow standards. And still with less than 20% of the population consuming resources at a non sustainable rate, you think we are not burning the candle up to quickly ? You must be 50 or 60 years old, thinking you will live another 30 years at the most... Of course there is a technicall solution : just nuke the poor out of existence (except for a few to be kept as cheap or slave labour ?)

Most of the world is still living in the same conditions as the labour force of the 19th century except they eat less meat. But some of them have transistors and mp3 players.

Of course the Sun will petter out in some billion years, but there seem some people whishing to hasten the end by a big margin (10 trillion % or so ;:)

Jacob

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by S485122

Most of the world is still living in the same conditions as the labour force of the 19th century except they eat less meat. But some of them have transistors and mp3 players.

So? This is much better than living in the middle-ages. Also, in 200 years most of the world will have our standard of living and the S485122's living then will probably think that's awful and waste everybody else's time complaining about it.

Originally Posted by S485122

Of course the Sun will petter out in some billion years, but there seem some people whishing to hasten the end by a big margin (10 trillion % or so ;:)

50 years ago it was that we'll nuke us out of existence. Didn't happen then either. But even if Global Warming wipes out 99% of humans, that's not the end, since there will still be 60 million left. That's still about 100x more than there were after the last ice-age.

So, sit back, relax and enjoy the show.

Originally Posted by S485122

The countries representing 20 % of world population have a good living standard, the rest live in poverty, malnutrition, ill health... But even those proportions should be corrected : there are a lot of people in "rich" countries that live bellow standards. And still with less than 20% of the population consuming resources at a non sustainable rate, you think we are not burning the candle up to quickly ? You must be 50 or 60 years old, thinking you will live another 30 years at the most... Of course there is a technicall solution : just nuke the poor out of existence (except for a few to be kept as cheap or slave labour ?)

1. You seem to think that 'poor' is an absolute term. If you kill all poor people, then some other people will magicallly become the 'poor' even though their standard of living has not changed.

2. Life is not a zero-sum game. Just because some countries are richer than the rest, doesn't mean they must have stolen their wealth from the poor. Or do you really think that Eastern Europe was in such a bad shape, because the west has exploited these poor countries from 1945-1990?

3. If you think everybody should be equal, then you think everybody should have nothing, since making people more equal is costly and the argument can be applied recursively.