[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Human vs. natural influences on the environment
jw wrote:
>
> In <4vv6t5$q0@igc.apc.org> tomgray <tomgray@igc.apc.org> writes:
> >
> >"D. Braun" <dbraun@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>My sentiments exactly. I was wondering, though, what is the best
> method of
> >>addressing the counter-intuitive reasoning of many who believe that
> >>because global warming might not be occurring, or might not be "bad",
> >>nothing needs to be done?
> >
>
> There's nothing counter-intuitive about it; it's common sense.
>
If something might happen and then again it might not happen, common
sense does not suggest no consequences for behavior. For example, were
I to start smoking, I might become addicted and I might not. If I did
become addicted, I might die of lung cancer and I might not. Bob Dole
is right in saying that not everyone who smokes becomes addicted to
nicotine, just the overwhelming majority of people. (The same, by the
way could be said about any addictive substance like heroin.) If I
don't want to rely on having to satisfy a craving, prudence would
dictate not taking the chance. If I did become addicted, it is
actually not that likely that I would get lung cancer, which is still
relatively rare, even among smokers (except in some professions like
those who worked with asbestos where it is almost guaranteed). Most
smoking related disease is cardiovascular. However, lung cancer is
among the less treatable cancers and it is a very unpleasant way to die.
Even emphysema, which is also caused by smoking, is a very unpleasant
way to die, as my father-in-law found out, although he could not stop
smoking even at the end. So one must consider the plausibility of
certain consequences of a course of action and also the costs should it
occur. Since climate change of some significance is quite plausible,
albeit not certain, it would at least make sense to take measures, such
as more efficient use of energy, use of renewable fuels like wind,
solar, and nuclear where practical, and to support research to
understand climate change and to develop renwable energy to where it can
replace fossil fuels. These are not things which will hurt our economy
or social system although it may change the mix of winners and losers.
The most opposition to doing anything at all comes from people who
expect to be losers and people who think that any societal action is in
itself bad and has to be avoided whatever the conseqeunces. That
doesn't sound much like common sense to me.
> >Well, I favor trying reason, myself, at least as a first option.
>
Before you can try reason to understand a subject, you have to know
something about that subject. `Reason' as employed in much political
discourse is not very rational. That is because people seldom consider
_all_ possible alternatives. They allow their prejudices and
preconceptions to determine the conclusions.
> *First* option!
> And if reason is on *their* side (as it quite obviously is
> in the example given above) - then try what? Deception? Force?
> Brainwashing?
This is rhetoric and doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding of the
issues.
--
Leonard Evens len@math.nwu.edu 491-5537
Department of Mathematics, Norwthwestern University
Evanston Illinois
Follow-Ups:
References: