Global Warming Cont...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Was hoping to draw in daybreaker, salty, etc. But they tend to stay away unless they are making a "see, global warming is happening" kind of response.

---

Randy is trying to argue that "future generations" (in the abstract) can carry no moral imperative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daybreaker2

That is amazingly, incredibly ****ing irresponsible, greedy, and selfish. If you *honestly* believe that (instead of just saying that to get me to post something like this), you are a giant piece of shit. Why dont we just **** up the planet as much as we can then, since we dont have to worry about the world our kids have to live in? Let's bomb every country, pollute every lake, destroy every ecosystem. Lets over-fish to the point that our seas no longer have any more fish, or shrimp, or crabs. Let's cut down all the trees, so that there are no forests left to recycle the CO2. Let's push every edible species to the bring of extinction, and use up every water reservoir. Because hey, it'll de a GREAT 40 years for us, and it'll be fun and awesome, and then we'll just die and on our tombstones we can put "HAHAHAHA **** YOU GUYS!"

---

But if we change our course of conduct, the future people that would have existed will not exist at all (in essence, we would kill them) in favor of a completely different set of people that will come into existence. What about THEIR rights?

Wouldn't those future people (the people that will exist if we do not do anything about CO2) rather have a chance to live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daybreaker2

ok, you want it on your terms?

Incorrect. There is not ZERO credible evidence. There is some credible evidence pointing towards both sides. Thats why there is a debate, and not just one side going "No, all the evidence is for us, we win"

---

Well, what I mean is that there is ZERO evidence that establishes an irrefutable link between humans and global warming. The "best" evidence used to unequivocally demonstrate that humans are the cause is the ice core data, which establishes baseline levels of "prehuman" CO2. But, this data is seriously flawed, because it is based on a disproven assumption that the environmental community completely ignores that calls the entire baseline levels into question. In fact, it is HIGHLY LIKELY that we have had atmospheric CO2 levels as high as they are 100,000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, etc. BEFORE humans started consuming fossil fuels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daybreaker2

That is amazingly, incredibly ****ing irresponsible, greedy, and selfish. If you *honestly* believe that (instead of just saying that to get me to post something like this), you are a giant piece of shit. Why dont we just **** up the planet as much as we can then, since we dont have to worry about the world our kids have to live in? Let's bomb every country, pollute every lake, destroy every ecosystem. Lets over-fish to the point that our seas no longer have any more fish, or shrimp, or crabs. Let's cut down all the trees, so that there are no forests left to recycle the CO2. Let's push every edible species to the brink of extinction, and use up every water reservoir. Because hey, it'll be a GREAT 40 years for us, and it'll be fun and awesome, and then we'll just die and on our tombstones we can put "HAHAHAHA **** YOU GUYS!"

---

Seriously. Who do we owe an obligation to? If we owe an obligation, contractually that implies that there is SOMEONE that we owe the obligation to. It implies a PARTICULAR person. Intellectually, I can buy the argument that there is SOMEONE in the future that we owe an obligation to. I'd challenge it, but I think that at least gets into the discussion. But, there is a HUGE problem, particularly if you believe that changes we might make might affect the environment in the future (I'm assuming that this is your position :)).

Why? Well, the particular SOMEONEs that we would owe an obligation to would undoubtably be exterminated as a result of our carrying out that obligation. You see, the statistics of procreation (sperm meets egg) are highly sensitive to environmental factors, much moreso than the global warming/CO2 link in fact. This is an ethical conundrum that you can't get around: The ACTIONS that YOU might take IN AN EFFORT TO FULFILL some OBLIGATION to a GENERATION of FUTURE SOMEONES will, in effect, WIPE OUT those someones that you were obligated to.

It is true that it is quite possible that someone else would be born, that would not have been born without your action. But, philosophically, what justification could there possibly be for the creation of new life, which is basically what you'd have to argue. Are you really prepared to take this position?

As a final note, I think you completely misunderstand the link between consumption for selfish ends and the environment. It's pretty funny.

^Major pwnage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

^Major pwnage

---

What? That was the weakest reply I've ever read. That post is borderline moronic. No. Completely moronic.

My highlights from that post:
"Intellectually, I can buy the argument that there is SOMEONE in the future that we owe an obligation to. I'd challenge it, but"
^mind-numbing

"You see, the statistics of procreation (sperm meets egg) are highly sensitive to environmental factors, much moreso than the global warming/CO2 link in fact... WIPE OUT those someones that you were obligated to."
^moronic given that his proposal is for NOT CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT ANY MORE

"It is true that it is quite possible that someone else would be born, that would not have been born without your action. But, philosophically, what justification could there possibly be for the creation of new life, which is basically what you'd have to argue."
^idiotic

It's almost like I'm reading something in Mad magazine. But it's funnier because you guys don't realize it.

daybreaker2 wins this round. He only brings attention to your philosophy of self-centeredness... I wouldn't think you guys would argue against that statement.

There is nothing wrong with being self-centered. He didn't show that one bit.

Randy clearly showed the philisophical problem with giving moral weight to future un-conceived generations. If you are too dense to realize that, maybe you should become a democrap.

Here is the logic:
(1) We are doing x
(2) Doing x will result in a group of people to be born (n1x, n2x, n3x...) into a certain environment
(3) Daybreaker says "what about the world these people will inherit"? We should stop doing x and do y for their sake.
(4) However, doing y will result in an entirely different group of people bing born (n1y, n2y, n3y...)
(5) Therefore, doing something to make (n1x, n2x, n3x)s future better (allegedly) killed them off entirely. And we thought we were doing them a favor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

There is nothing wrong with being self-centered. He didn't show that one bit.

---

He gave a ridiculously absurd argument based on completely insane logic with a sprinkling of philosophy to refute daybreaker calling the idea that we have no obligation to future individuals self centered.

If you are of the opinion that we can change the environmental warming trend that we created... (which would mean it staying the climate it is now) you are not responsible for the extinction of a future generation by doing so.

Just say you don't give a crap about what happens to future generations and move on. Better to sound self-centered than foolish and self-centered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

My highlights from that post:
"Intellectually, I can buy the argument that there is SOMEONE in the future that we owe an obligation to. I'd challenge it, but"
^mind-numbing

---

Nice argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

"You see, the statistics of procreation (sperm meets egg) are highly sensitive to environmental factors, much moreso than the global warming/CO2 link in fact... WIPE OUT those someones that you were obligated to."
^moronic given that his proposal is for NOT CHANGING THE ENVIRONMENT ANY MORE

---

Wrong, his argument is that we should take actions to preserve for future generations. I'm saying, IF our changes result in even a slightly different environment from what it would have been without our changes, then we have annihilated those that would have been in the absence of our changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

"It is true that it is quite possible that someone else would be born, that would not have been born without your action. But, philosophically, what justification could there possibly be for the creation of new life, which is basically what you'd have to argue."
^idiotic

---

How so? Because I have challenged an unfounded moral position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

daybreaker2 wins this round. He only brings attention to your philosophy of self-centeredness... I wouldn't think you guys would argue against that statement.

---

I have not argued against self-centeredness. I have pointed out that pursuing the morals of "future generations" is deeply flawed. The ONLY way to frame the discussion in a manner that can be clearly evaluated is in terms of one's rational self-interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Randy clearly showed the philisophical problem with giving moral weight to future un-conceived generations. If you are too dense to realize that, maybe you should become a democrap.

Here is the logic:
(1) We are doing x
(2) Doing x will result in a group of people to be born (n1x, n2x, n3x...) into a certain environment
(3) Daybreaker says "what about the world these people will inherit"? We should stop doing x and do y for their sake.
(4) However, doing y will result in an entirely different group of people bing born (n1y, n2y, n3y...)
(5) Therefore, doing something to make (n1x, n2x, n3x)s future better (allegedly) killed them off entirely. And we thought we were doing them a favor.

---

Absurd. It's like a 12 year-old's thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Nice argument.
Wrong, his argument is that we should take actions to preserve for future generations. I'm saying, IF our changes result in even a slightly different environment from what it would have been without our changes, then we have annihilated those that would have been in the absence of our changes.
How so? Because I have challenged an unfounded moral position?
I have not argued against self-centeredness. I have pointed out that pursuing the morals of "future generations" is deeply flawed. The ONLY way to frame the discussion in a manner that can be clearly evaluated is in terms of one's rational self-interest.

---

So your entire post was based on the same logic that Guislapp pointed out... Wow. :rolleyes4:

I see how you are not posting against self centerdness, but you are refuting his claim that you are selfish by saying that your position is not selfish because of that ridiculous moral argument. :bomb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

He gave a ridiculously absurd argument based on completely insane logic with a sprinkling of philosophy to refute daybreaker calling the idea that we have no obligation to future individuals self centered.

If you are of the opinion that we can change the environmental warming trend that we created... (which would mean it staying the climate it is now) you are not responsible for the extinction of a future generation by doing so.

Just say you don't give a crap about what happens to future generations and move on. Better to sound self-centered than foolish and self-centered.

---

Insane logic? Where? He can call me self-centered. My argument is that his moral framework has no legitimate basis -- in fact, if he buys his framework, his best action is to be nihilistic, and to do as little as possible to intentionally change the environment.

My argument, simply, is that in the absence of our taking corrective steps with the intention of preserving some future generation would lead to a different future generation of conceived individuals than what would exist if we actively made changes with the intent of protecting the environment for the future.

To say it is different is one thing, but I can take it a step farther and say that the individuals that would be conceived/born would be effectively exterminated, and those that come to be would be created from our actions. That's just more precise.

Even if the changes to the environment are not major (the impact on the environment is small, because humans don't really do that much to affect it), the science is firmly on my side -- procreation statistics are HIGHLY environmentally sensitive. So even if we can make a miniscule change in temperature, that might be statistically INSIGNIFICANT in warming theory but statistically significant in procreation statistics.

Our best course of action, therefore, is to NOT consider future generations as something that we are obligated to. It is not a morally sound position, because it only leads us to murdering those that we are obligated to. :icon_wink:

Unconventional argument, I know -- what is wrong with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duckbillplatty

Absurd. It's like a 12 year-old's thinking.

---

So it should be easy to refute, then? Yet the best arguments you are making are "absurd," "idiotic," "selfish," etc. :icon_wink:

It is definitely an unconventional argument. But it was the argument he was trying to draw people into. I think it is a moral argument worthy of discussion.