= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
milindsmart comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
Are we agreed that the rapid rise in CO2 levels, to highs not seen in human history and owing to human intervention, is undisputed fact?
If so, it seems to me that the default extrapolation, from our everyday experience with systems we understand poorly, is that when you turn a dial all the way up without knowing what the heck you're doing, you won't like the results. Example include: numerous cases of introducing animal species (bacteria, sheep, wasps) to populations not adapted to them, said populations then suffering upheaval; stock market crashes; losing two space shuttles; and so on.
The burden of proof seems to be on those who insist that yeah, CO2 levels are rising super fast, but don't worry, it'll be business as usual (except winters will be nicer and summers will need a little more ice cubes).
Wha...? Is that an argument by surface analogy? Does every increase in every value owing to human intervention lead to a catastrophe? How about internet connectivity? Land committed to agriculture? Air respired by humans? Shoes built? Radio waves transmitted?
How do you even measure the reference classes appropriately?
Ah that particular idea of all human pleasures being harmful for the environment is pretty much religious. It's not at all what the impact is like.
Computing is basically blameless in the direct sense for global warming. We should probably enjoy it as much as possible. Electricity is good. Trains are good. Holidaying is good.
Airconditioning is bad. Air travel is bad. Short product lifetime is bad.
The situation is far more positive than some make it out to be. Even the direst climate change predictions necessitates drastic changes in some aspects of life.
AGW can't take away modern medicine or virtual reality from you.
Why do you think "harmful for the environment" means "leading to global warming"? Lots of things are harmful for the environment. Drying swamps to make railroads harm it. Holidaying leads to decreased "old habitat" biodiversity. Building power plants on small mountain rivers leads to decreased biodiversity, too. Yes, these things are good for us. It just has no bearing on whether they are good for nature.
My favorite one: burning wood for heat. Better than fossil fuels for the GW problem, but really bad for local air quality.
Of course, "leading to global warming" is a subset of "harmful for the environment". Agreed on all counts.
Computing can't harm the environment in any way - it's within a totally artificial human space.
The others ("good") can harm the environment in general, but are much better for AGW.
Well...