The Anti-Civilization Thread

[Agrippa]

Ziggy's analogy is direct and correct. You guys seem to agree that you can do harm by taking actions against global warming (I disagree, but this is irrelevant to show that the analogy does hold).

In both cases, not acting at all will yield the worst outcome. Not picking up the friend will surely lead to him dying, whereas picking him up will potentially lead to paralysis, but also to more professional help and at least survival of his life at the expense of his spinal cord.

In the case of global warming some action now may lead to a temporary decrease in the economy, say, but at least we will be on the right track towards a sustainable way of life. No action at all, may lead to a situation where green house gases surround us and lead to a vicious circle where polar ice caps melt, less drinking water, floods, tropical storms in higher latitudes, disease, etc as things only get worse and the temperature keeps increasing, vegetation would die, and there would be less plants that could transform CO2 to O2 and so forth until the earth resembles Mercury. (Well maybe not, but I hope you understand what I mean!)

Why risk it?!

 

[eastender]

Analogies.............

Ziggy's analogy is direct and correct. You guys seem to agree that you can do harm by taking actions against global warming (I disagree, but this is irrelevant to show that the analogy does hold).

Agrippa,

Never put your opponent in a debate at the heart of a hypothetical analogy. Been around for to long to fall for that trap.

Regardless your point seems to be that it is acceptable to undertake the possibility of commiting greater harm on the chance that you might do some good while my point is that a prudent person would never have gotten into such a situation in the first place given that cellphones and other communications devices are readily available. Also why enter an environment with inherent risks when you do not have an exit plan?

 

[Agrippa]

Never put your opponent in a debate at the heart of a hypothetical analogy. Been around for to long to fall for that trap.

I don't understand this, who are you talking about? You and Ziggy's exchanges or the one you and me just had? There is no trap; the analgy is clear! It strips it down to the simplest question. Do you take action or not. If you do, this might happen, if you don't that might happen.

Regardless your point seems to be that it is acceptable to undertake the possibility of commiting greater harm on the chance that you might do some good while my point is that a prudent person would never have gotten into such a situation in the first place given that cellphones and other communications devices are readily available. Also why enter an environment with inherent risks when you do not have an exit plan?

No my point is not "that it is acceptable to undertake the possibility of commiting greater harm." Please read carefully. Why would I say let's do something that may cause greater harm to anyone/anything. The whole point is to minimize harm!?

Why are we talking about someone in a forest without a cell phone now? The analogy was to make clear that if we don't take some decisive actions now (with their own repercussions), then things may get worse for the environment and, as a result, for us.

 

[eastender]

Rather Simple

I don't understand this, who are you talking about? You and Ziggy's exchanges or the one you and me just had? There is no trap; the analgy is clear! It strips it down to the simplest question. Do you take action or not. If you do, this might happen, if you don't that might happen.

No my point is not "that it is acceptable to undertake the possibility of commiting greater harm." Please read carefully. Why would I say let's do something that may cause greater harm to anyone/anything. The whole point is to minimize harm!?

Why are we talking about someone in a forest without a cell phone now? The analogy was to make clear that if we don't take some decisive actions now (with their own repercussions), then things may get worse for the environment and, as a result, for us.

Agrippa,

Rather simple.You do not venture into the forest unprepared. So the situation does not arise and you do not have a base to argue or question what is the lesser of many evils.The whole point is to AVOID harm not to MINIMIZE further harm.If people do not go into forests unprepared they AVOID harm and they do not have to concern themselves about MINIMIZING harm.To acknowledge ZMs forest analogy would be akin to sanctionning going into a forest unprepared - something that I am far from prepared to do.

The first lesson that any intern, nurse, doctor,paramedic,etc learns is do not do more harm.Rather simple concept. Once you accept the concept of risk that may cause more harm then you open the door for incompetent dogooders which is something I would not wish on anyone.

I do not see that the unforeseen reprecussions that you write about are preferable.Prefer the known evil to the unknown.

 

[Agrippa]

I will try to write clearly and simply to avoid any misunderstandings.

You do not venture into the forest unprepared.

Why are we still talking about going into forests? It was an aside analogy to illustrate a point about inaction with respect to the environment. The environment is the injured person in the example and not taking any action will lead to death. Taking action may lead to paralysis, but not death. Which is worse?

So the situation does not arise and you do not have a base to argue or question what is the lesser of many evils.The whole point is to AVOID harm not to MINIMIZE further harm.

I am the one who keeps saying (4th time in this thread) Prevention not cure. I am talking about minimizing the current harm we are doing to the environment. It cannot be more harmful than what we are already doing.

If people do not go into forests unprepared they AVOID harm and they do not have to concern themselves about MINIMIZING harm.

Are you basically saying that we shouldn't do anything until we have hydrogen powered cars? Let's wait for technology (which caused the problem in the first place, might I remind you) to fix the problem?

The first lesson that any intern, nurse, doctor,paramedic,etc learns is do not do more harm.Rather simple concept.

Yeah, it is a simple concept. Let me try this other simple one: The doctor has a choice they can let the person die of cancer, or treat the patient with chemotherapy. If the chemotherapy is unsuccessful the patient still dies. If it is successful then the patient will lose their hair, feel sick, puke, lose weight, etc but will live. Again, which is worse?

I do not see that the unforeseen reprecussions that you write about are preferable.Prefer the known evil to the unknown.

Please give concrete examples of what harm you are talking about. I already have in post #207: temporary economic drawbacks vs ecological catastrophies.

 

[JustBob]

Yeah, it is a simple concept. Let me try this other simple one: The doctor has a choice they can let the person die of cancer, or treat the patient with chemotherapy. If the chemotherapy is unsuccessful the patient still dies. If it is successful then the patient will lose their hair, feel sick, puke, lose weight, etc but will live. Again, which is worse?

Major difference. In this case, the choice of using chemotherapy is based on past results and on some odds that the treatment can work.

I already have in post #207: temporary economic drawbacks vs ecological catastrophies.

On what grounds do you assume that injecting trillions of dollars (i.e. temporary economic drawbacks) would succeed at stopping or even reducing the current global warming trend (i.e. ecological catastrophies)? On faith?

 

[Agrippa]

Major difference. In this case, the choice of using chemotherapy is based on past results and on some odds that the treatment can work.

OK, let's go back a few steps in the argument. Do you deny that the last century of industrialization has had an effect on our health and the environment? If yes then forget it. If not then wouldn't you agree that stopping the harm would prevent the situation from getting worse? Action vs inaction, that's all I'm saying.

On what grounds do you assume that injecting trillions of dollars (i.e. temporary economic drawbacks) would succeed at stopping or even reducing the current global warming trend (i.e. ecological catastrophies)? On faith?

Are you kidding me? Faith? No, on science. Less carbon means less heat gets trapped in the atmosphere which in turn means less warming. This is of course not as linear and wouldn't be as direct, but evidently that is one causation. I'll ask you on what grounds do you assume that it would not change anything. What exactly is your take on what should be done? Just keep waiting? Not do anything because it would cost too much?

 

[eastender]

Technology and problems

Let's wait for technology (which caused the problem in the first place, might I remind you) to fix the problem?

Technology did not cause the Ice Age.That was a bit of an ecological disaster by most accounts.

Let's assume that forests or farm land is preferable to swamps,tundra,deserts and other forms of waste land.Fifty years ago the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico was considered wasteland and no one dreamed that anything could be salvaged or built in the area.Technology helped build Cancun and salvaged land from swamps.This land is now used for farming and houses/hosts a part of what some claim is an over-populated planet.

The technology exists to reclaim much of the world's deserts.The willingness to spend the money and manpower is another issue.Would eliminating deserts effect weather patterns? Never been done but chances are it would have a similar effect that the various hydro electric projects have had in northern Quebec.However these hydro electric projects have reduced our dependence on fossil fuels?

Lets look at saving trees.Since the start of the computer age(technology) communications and the storage of data requiring paper has become alot more rational and manageable.

The overwhelming number of ecological problems we have today started at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution before we had the knowledge,data and expertise to foresee the damages of dumping industrial waste into the air, our waterways or our land.

Land that is contaminated by industrial waste from the dawn of the Industrial revolution is reclaimed thru technology as much as possible.

Waste management is no longer confined to landfill,tire dumps and the like but creates viable energy sources,re-cycled products,etc.This is all a tribute to technology.

The issue is that all of these examples are a tribute to what can be done by technology with a responsible rational approach, long term planning,proper analysis,etc at every point.

 

[eastender]

Harm???????

OK, let's go back a few steps in the argument. Do you deny that the last century of industrialization has had an effect on our health and the environment? If yes then forget it. If not then wouldn't you agree that stopping the harm would prevent the situation from getting worse? Action vs inaction,

The last century of industrialization has had an impact on health.The average
life span in North America has risen from 47 to 77/80 men/women.The mortality rate for newborns has dropped significantly.Polio,tuberculosis,scarlet fever have pretty well disappeared from the scene.Cancer is not the death sentence it once was.Heart disease is manageable.

I'd say health technology has done a fairly good job.

 

[JustBob]

OK, let's go back a few steps in the argument. Do you deny that the last century of industrialization has had an effect on our health and the environment? If yes then forget it. If not then wouldn't you agree that stopping the harm would prevent the situation from getting worse? Action vs inaction, that's all I'm saying.

Aside from a few exceptions, the effect of industrialization on our health has been overwhelmingly positive. As for the environment, I believe we should indeed take better care of it thru sound policy and education. This is already occuring. Environmental consciousness is a lot higher today than it was 50 years ago.

Are you kidding me? Faith? No, on science. Less carbon means less heat gets trapped in the atmosphere which in turn means less warming. This is of course not as linear and wouldn't be as direct, but evidently that is one causation.

Correction. On science YOU believe in. Heck, I don't even have to bring up the skeptics point of view (that there's no direct, 100% proven correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming) here. Even within those scientists that believe such a correlation exists, there are those who argue that even if all Kyoto signatories were to reach their targets (which won't happen) the impact on the reduction of global warming would be little to none. The most optimistic estimates from these scientists is that the 5 or 6 degree increase in temperature predicted in the next century would occur by 2110 instead of 2100...

I'll ask you on what grounds do you assume that it would not change anything. What exactly is your take on what should be done? Just keep waiting? Not do anything because it would cost too much?

I'm all for rational action. I'm not for action that would mean spending trillions of dollars and cripple economies based on contradictory science and in the hope ("faith") that it would produce significant positive results. Especially when current, tangible issues which cause thousands if not millions of people to die every year (AIDS, malaria, etc...) could make better use of that money.

As eastender put it, I subscribe to a responsible rational approach, long term planning, proper analysis, etc at every point.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

ZM,

Jesuit sophism when losing raises this type of analogy.Somewhat like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and when the other party asks for clarification claiming that they have admitted to the existence of angels.

May I remind you that it was YOUR analogy in the first place only described in a particular context?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Also why enter an environment with inherent risks when you do not have an exit plan?

Ask the Bush administration, they'll fill you in.

 

[eastender]

Bush Administration

Ask the Bush administration, they'll fill you in.

Never believed that there was a desire to exit.They needed a base for operations in the area.

 

[Agrippa]

I'd say health technology has done a fairly good job.

I won't call your post disingenious, because that would assume that you actually understood my post and are diverting attention away from it.

Nowhere did I argue against medicine and technology. Of course these are good things. Do you really take me for an idiot? I'm talking about industry (for the simpleminded amongst you: coal power plants, factories with smokestacks that burn shit and spew it into the air we breathe, to caricature the issue, since you don't seem to get it).

You brought up people with OCPD. These are the things I am talking about. Industry that caused OCPD and make it harder for them to breathe.

 

[eastender]

Your Interpretation

May I remind you that it was YOUR analogy in the first place only described in a particular context?

ZM,

If it was MY analogy I would have made it from the beginning.It is YOUR interpretation.

 

[Agrippa]

As for the environment, I believe we should indeed take better care of it thru sound policy and education. This is already occuring. Environmental consciousness is a lot higher today than it was 50 years ago.

Good so we agree on this.

Correction. On science YOU believe in. Heck, I don't even have to bring up the skeptics point of view (that there's no direct, 100% proven correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming) here.

Indeed, nor is there a direct 100% proof that smoking causes lung cancer. No really, scientists will tell you that, I'm not being sarcastic. Scientits can only say "The incidence of lung cancer is highly correlated with smoking." and words like "risks associated with," and "linked", never "It causes cancer."

Even within those scientists that believe such a correlation exists, there are those who argue that even if all Kyoto signatories were to reach their targets (which won't happen) the impact on the reduction of global warming would be little to none. The most optimistic estimates from these scientists is that the 5 or 6 degree increase in temperature predicted in the next century would occur by 2110 instead of 2100...

Then what? Is the earth going to shrivel up and no (or little) life will survive? What the fuck are we waiting for to do something about it?

I'm all for rational action. I'm not for action that would mean spending trillions of dollars and cripple economies based on contradictory science and in the hope ("faith") that it would produce significant positive results. Especially when current, tangible issues which cause thousands if not millions of people to die every year (AIDS, malaria, etc...) could make better use of that money.

And then what? We all die in 2110? (Sure, I'm exaggerating, but for all intents purposes...)

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Agrippa,

Rather simple.You do not venture into the forest unprepared.

(sigh) Accidents happen in the forest (in the city, in deep space, underwater, etc...), irrespective of one's level of preparation.

By definition, an "accident" "is a detrimental event that occurs unexpectedly and unintentionally", i.e. an event you're not prepared for.

 

[korbel]

100% proof!?

Heck, I don't even have to bring up the skeptics point of view (that there's no direct, 100% proven correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming) here. Even within those scientists that believe such a correlation exists, there are those who argue that even if all Kyoto signatories were to reach their targets (which won't happen) the impact on the reduction of global warming would be little to none. The most optimistic estimates from these scientists is that the 5 or 6 degree increase in temperature predicted in the next century would occur by 2110 instead of 2100...

Hello JustBob,

Oh the fate of mankind if all progress depended on 100% proof. What would become of religion the focus of so much of our human character? What fate for love? What a lawless and anarchic world if justice required perfect proof.

Sometimes when it comes to this subject, JB, I wonder if skepticism is your "religion". Yes, I am exaggerating. I am "all for rational action" too. However, what good is a great economy that is globally self-destructive? All the positive attributes you refer to from industrialization aren't worth a damn if in the end we damage our world so bad that it threatens human survival. As for the warning of possible climatic calamity concerning global warming...caution is wise...wishful thinking is NOT! I hope we can all determine the difference for our sakes.

Sweet dreams,

Korbel

 

[z/m(Ret)]

ZM,

If it was MY analogy I would have made it from the beginning.It is YOUR interpretation.

Hem hem...

An analogy would be moving someone who may have a spinal cord injury instead of waiting for qualified help.That the person meant well would not be acceptable under such circumstances if the injured party becomes paralyzed as a result of being moved improperly.

 

[eastender]

It's COPD .............

I won't call your post disingenious, because that would assume that you actually understood my post and are diverting attention away from it.

Nowhere did I argue against medicine and technology. Of course these are good things. Do you really take me for an idiot? I'm talking about industry (for the simpleminded amongst you: coal power plants, factories with smokestacks that burn shit and spew it into the air we breathe, to caricature the issue, since you don't seem to get it).

You brought up people with OCPD. These are the things I am talking about. Industry that caused OCPD and make it harder for them to breathe.

COPD (MPOC in French) - note the correct term,is mainly caused by smoking although contributing factors may be various chemicals used in refining metals and ores,asbestos,etc.A person looks perfectly healthy but their lungs and/or bronchial tubes are virtually finished.

Smoking was an indulgence long before industrialization and technology. Leftover from an agricultural age.Years ago people would simply die before reaching the COPD stage. Now COPD is an issue because medical technology sustains life longer.

Most of the examples in your caricature have been eliminated or the effects of emissions have been greatly reduced,again by technology.

As for your trade proposal....................????????????????