= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gjm comments on Argument Screens Off Authority - 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 (80)
Not exactly -- I don't believe the "millions of extra deaths" projections and I strongly suspect that if I were to dig into the data, I would find the 5% GDP loss to be a shaky number.
In general, my position is that the best way to deal with uncertain threats in the future is to make sure future people are wealthy and technologically advanced. As an analogy, it would have been very unwise of, say, Europe in the XVIII century to suppress the industrialization because of concerns over deforestation, smog, and mines' tailings.
The difficulty I have with applying that principle here is: which people? As the Stern Report says, the harms currently expected to result from climate change will fall overwhelmingly on the world's poorest people. Ensuring that the inhabitants of the US and northwestern Europe are wealthy and technologically advanced will be very nice for us, but I'm not sure the people whose land becomes uninhabitable will (or should) consider that a great tradeoff.
I don't understand your difficulty. The answer is: all and any.
This is similar to an observation that having a well-functioning immune system is the best way to deal with colds and other minor infections. The question "which people should have a well-functioning immune system?" makes no sense to me.