Global Warming Cont...

How can we even represent to know what is in the best interest of these people. My assumption is that they would rather be born and live in a world of warming than to never exist. Whose best interest do you really have in mind?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

It was my argument. Other people's interpretation of my argument just got jumbled because it was something they had not heard before. I have, from the beginning, claimed that the argument in no way changes MY moral position.

Again, from the beginning, the construction of the argument went...
Randy - we have no obligation to future generations
DB2 - What? You are being selfish. Of course we have an obligation to those good little boys and girls.
Randy - proceed with the rest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Especially since changing the course of conduct in an effort to preserve specific things for "future generations" kills the individuals that would have existed had the course of conduct not be changed. You know...when a butterfly flaps its wings... :icon_wink:

---

i appologize, randy, i see that it was guiss that kicked the whole thing off. but this, in essence, is the argument you have been defending, and it is absurd. i have pointed out how rediculous this argument is in various ways, and you have ignored the main point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

If I have already stated that we have no obligation to future generations, why would it be a paradox to me? Potential people change, but no potential people have value/rights until they are ACTUAL persons.

There is no possible way that your actions can reduce the suffering of any particular individuals of a future generation. I would argue that the potential people that WOULD HAVE been born would probably prefer whatever suffering they would face to not being born at all.

---

the real paradox is how you reconcile the above bolded statements. how can a person who never comes to be PREFER anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Sorry -- other than the argument that it is absurd, you've yet to make a point. But, I'll go further... IF the individuals that are born into the future suffer IN ANY WAY, they suffer in that way as a result of your actions. That is, precisely, they would not have suffered otherwise, as they would not have existed. :rolleyes4:

IF this is your position, then your ethical standards have no appropriate base.

---

you use the appropriate emoticon here. in a very remote sort of way, everyone who is born in the future is born as a result of my actions, but no more so than the actions of every person in the world. this is something that is beyond my control. thus i can take no responsibility for it.

as for CAUSING suffering, this truly is a silly argument. it is true that most people will suffer, and all will die, as a condition of their existence. but i am not causing them to come to exist, and even if i were, bringing someone into existence does not cause their suffering. surely you are not about to argue that the simple act of having children is a crime?

my argument was that contributing to one's suffering, no matter who, is immoral.

of course, i am having to argue ouside my own philosphical beliefs, because i seriously doubt that any person, or even all people combined, have the power to change WHO will be born. we may be able to affect genetic makeup, but not souls (but that is an entirely different subject).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Sure, but the basis of my decision does not have to be the fact that a child is born with or without my interference. I do not think I would send the envelope, because I would be being hiding part of the package. In the same sense, I would not take a broken computer, make it look nice and pretty on the outside, and try to sell it as a functional machine. It is dishonest, and by my standards of dealing with others, that is something I'm not prepared to do.

---

so apart from the dishonesty, you see nothing immoral with sending the envelope?

ok, one final hypo, since you keep sidestepping the point. let's say you do have it in your power to cause people to come into existance. you have only two options. create ten perfectly healthy individuals, or create ten people who are diseased and in pain, and have difficulty even drawing enough oxygen to breathe. which is preferable?

i would argue that you have the obligation to this "generation" to create them healthy, even though the individuals of the healthy generation are not the same indivuduals as those of the unhealthy one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

-----------------------
Bob, I will agree wholeheartedly that my argument is unconventional. I am surprised by your blatant disregard for sound reasoning on this issue, though. You have yet to present any sort of real argument against this. If you read text-books, most international law, environmental law, etc., theorists accept that this person-changing issue is valid. They just choose to ignore it.

---

when have i ever shown any contept for an unconventional argument? i enjoy an unconventional argument, much more so than a conventional one, as long as it is valid. however, you are the one referring to textbooks. that doesn't sound unconventional to me.

i will admit that it is a bit of a paradox, if you look at it as demonstrated by my last hypo, but not one that comes remotely close to something that should affect anyone's decisions. the reason the theorists ignore it is because it doesn't matter. decreasing overall suffering, no matter which individuals are doing the suffering, is always preferable to increasing it.

the above bolded statement is the reason your argument, as an argument against making things better (or avoiding making them worse) for future generations, is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

How can we even represent to know what is in the best interest of these people. My assumption is that they would rather be born and live in a world of warming than to never exist. Whose best interest do you really have in mind?

---

the interest of real people -- people who ARE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

the real paradox is how you reconcile the above bolded statements. how can a person who never comes to be PREFER anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer http://www.latechbbb.com/forum/image...s/viewpost.gif
If I have already stated that we have no obligation to future generations, why would it be a paradox to me? Potential people change, but no potential people have value/rights until they are ACTUAL persons.

There is no possible way that your actions can reduce the suffering of any particular individuals of a future generation. I would argue that the potential people that WOULD HAVE been born would probably prefer whatever suffering they would face to not being born at all.

---

---

There is no reconciliation. What people that WOULD HAVE been born would have preferred is not an argument that means anything to me. Neither is what people who WILL BE born significant. My argument is that you can't claim to care about the people that WILL BE born unless you reconcile that the people that WOULD HAVE BEEN born without your action will no longer be born at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

you use the appropriate emoticon here. in a very remote sort of way, everyone who is born in the future is born as a result of my actions, but no more so than the actions of every person in the world. this is something that is beyond my control. thus i can take no responsibility for it.

---

I agree. Hence, we have no obligation (responsibility) for THEM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

as for CAUSING suffering, this truly is a silly argument. it is true that most people will suffer, and all will die, as a condition of their existence. but i am not causing them to come to exist, and even if i were, bringing someone into existence does not cause their suffering. surely you are not about to argue that the simple act of having children is a crime?

my argument was that contributing to one's suffering, no matter who, is immoral.

---

You DO cause them to come to exist. In that, if you were not involved, a different person would come to be. How exactly might I be contributing to one's suffering, if the result of my action is that one comes into existence that would not otherwise have existed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

so apart from the dishonesty, you see nothing immoral with sending the envelope?

---

If my intent is to prevent the couple from being able to have children that live for more than two years, then that is immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

ok, one final hypo, since you keep sidestepping the point. let's say you do have it in your power to cause people to come into existance. you have only two options. create ten perfectly healthy individuals, or create ten people who are diseased and in pain, and have difficulty even drawing enough oxygen to breathe. which is preferable?

---

Preferable to whom? The individuals that are created or to me? I would prefer healthy individuals. If I go through the effort to make something, I like to know it will last. The individuals who were diseased and in pain might prefer life to death, but might not. That is indeterminate. The individuals that are healthy would probably prefer to be alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i would argue that you have the obligation to this "generation" to create them healthy, even though the individuals of the healthy generation are not the same indivuduals as those of the unhealthy one.

---

Is obligation really the word you would choose to use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

when have i ever shown any contept for an unconventional argument? i enjoy an unconventional argument, much more so than a conventional one, as long as it is valid. however, you are the one referring to textbooks. that doesn't sound unconventional to me.

---

Good point. But it is nonetheless unconventional. Most textbook writers that talk about it mention it then forget about it/ignore it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arkansasbob

i will admit that it is a bit of a paradox, if you look at it as demonstrated by my last hypo, but not one that comes remotely close to something that should affect anyone's decisions. the reason the theorists ignore it is because it doesn't matter. decreasing overall suffering, no matter which individuals are doing the suffering, is always preferable to increasing it.

the above bolded statement is the reason your argument, as an argument against making things better (or avoiding making them worse) for future generations, is absurd.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of making things better for future generations. I argue that the use of terminology like "obligation" or "imagine all the kids in the future that will..." is filled with philosophical obstacles. It is certainly used as an emotional talking point, but I find no place for it in this discourse. My "thought experiment" illustrates the paradox of applying the logic of "obligations" for "people of the future."

I also haven't even mentioned where the suffering argument leads us, though. To bring it full circle, I would point out that if our goal is to reduce overall suffering, the ONLY way we can do that is to reduce suffering by today's standards. That means making SACRIFICES for the future generations is perplexing for the reasons listed above. The only appropriate basis for a decision is for those already existence.

I'd rather my children not get screwed by Social Security rather than protecting them from a CHANCE on them being significantly affected by AGW.

Heck, *I* might get screwed by SS. Even deforestation is a much bigger issue than the possibility that we cause significant global warming.

i don't have time to reply point by point. either your original argument was against consideration for future generations, or you we nit-picking semantics. your argument has been, and remains to be, silly on its face. it does not require a rebuttal. i am finished.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

I'd rather my children not get screwed by Social Security rather than protecting them from a CHANCE on them being significantly affected by AGW.

Heck, *I* might get screwed by SS. Even deforestation is a much bigger issue than the possibility that we cause significant global warming.

---

Who knows, mebbe your children will get more out of Social Security than they put in.. As for AGW, it's happening now, science has shown that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 results in higher global surface temperatures.

Global Warming advocates took a hit this week. Seems the melting ice cap at Greenland is due to a magma dome that has risen near the surface. Might still cause some problems, but nature, the Earth itself, is causing this problem, not man-made GW. Gee, too bad. How disappointing for those that endorse GW....

there was an article somewhere mid last week about the Artic ice cap refreezing at a record pace. It is already at levels equivalent to where it should be in February.

Google has too many pages of Koolaid articles to sort through to find the one I'm looking for at this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atobulldog

there was an article somewhere mid last week about the Artic ice cap refreezing at a record pace. It is already at levels equivalent to where it should be in February.

Google has too many pages of Koolaid articles to sort through to find the one I'm looking for at this time.

---

I guess the Bali conference worked really quickly? :idea2:

Happy Holidays from Al Gore....

http://www.winecommonsewer.com/photo...0707algore.jpg

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Happy Holidays from Al Gore....

http://www.winecommonsewer.com/photo...0707algore.jpg

---

You guys do know I dont even waste time reading this thread anymore.,,,

If your a scientist, or say you are, you better be ready to bring it.

Ive got an enormous amount of data, but rather than bore, you guys yap at me the FIRST time in YOUR REMAINING LIFETIME when I CANT post this...


...2007 a Top Ten Warm Year for U.S....
The year 2007 is on pace to become one of the 10 warmest years for the contiguous U.S., since national records began in 1895, according to preliminary data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The year was marked by exceptional drought in the U.S. Southeast and the West, which helped fuel another extremely active wildfire season. Details...

Some food for thought , actual facts . Surface vs. satellite readings Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tech70

Some food for thought , actual facts . Surface vs. satellite readings Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.
However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.
"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

---

That has been proven to be 100% incorrect. Even the denier scientist who first proposed it now admits he was wrong.