The climate change thread

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Eli

...


But we are not ancient Rome or the Eastern Islanders, we have our science and technology and we have huge nation states and international organizations and we are much better at coordinating our actions and predicting their results.

We should be spending more money on weather and environment research, because there are so many of us and our impact on our environment is huge and can result in a catastrophe.
But whenever and wherever we can predict with reasonable certainty the results of our actions and act accordingly to remove or minimize to acceptable levels the damage that we causing to ourselves, we should by no means let nature stand in our way.

For example, I'm not saying we should cut down the entire rain forest today. That would do enormous damage to the environment and eventually to ourselves since we depend on the environment for our living. It will also cause the extinction of countless species we havent studied and catalogued.

But when/if a time comes and we will no longer be needing the rainforest to do whatever it does(for example, much more efficient CO2->O converters than trees), then I would fully support cutting most of it down and filling the land with fields, farms and cities.

Those early Kingdoms / Republics (especially rome) also thought that they have science and technology.
This is one of the big dangers (aside from the moral aspect of exploitation of animals), i.e. that we (as well as the early kingdoms/republics) probably often don´t know enough about the long term dangers which are involved in our exploitation of nature (although we believe that we know enougn about them).

NAother thing is, that science most of the times isn´t purely black and white, but that often there are scientists who think one thing to be true and other scientists who thing that another thing is true.

The climate change is one example. Some scientists say that much of the weather phenomenons we encounter nowadays are anthropongenic and that we might encounter a grave climate change if we don´t reduce emissions of green house gases and the like.
Other scientists doubt this or think that the climate change won´t have such a great effect as the other scientists think.

It lies in the human nature that people often are more likely to expect a positive outcome as the negative (you see it for example in George Bush, who just keeps a deaf ear on those scientists who think that there is a anthropogenic climate change and instead prefers to hear only the opinions of those scientists who don´t think so [and bases his decision making on them].
The international organisations don´t seem to be able to do anything against this, though nearly all other leaders of all other countries take the warnings of the scientists about a climate change more seriously.)

So IMHO there is no big difference between the people of ancient rome and the people nowadays. If there is the slightest doubt wether some exploitation of nature will be harmful for ecology/humans/planet or whatever, the humans will choose to continue with their exploitation. Probably until it is too late to reverse the outcome.

[Az]

But since we have, we are, a human society, we can choose what those rights are. Personally, I fail to see the point of being a sentient and rational organism if we don't use those faculties to rise above our billion-year instinct to replicate at all costs.

Why is it "rise"? Why is it considered ethically superior?

What use is being sentient if we remain selfish biological machines?

A tool of survival. duh. But besides that, what use is it to become "gardners" as you've said?

But since we have, we are, a human society, we can choose what those rights are.

Yes, of course, of course. This is why we're having this debate, right? Then we return to the question of how should we treat animals and nature - as equal in importance in our own eyes to ourselves? as something that we enjoy and is crucial to our existance at this point ( which is the correct approach, IMO)? or under slash-and-burn resource management, which is what people who don't think far, or think that somehow "god" will make everything better, or whatever else, believe in.

Neither I, nor Eli, support the last option, because this option will lead to our own demise. However, not all drastically altered enviroments are unsustainable. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't change anything, it just means that we should change into other enviroments that are both sustainable, and more suitable to us.

I think that cruelty against animals is wrong
obviously you don't


And it's people like you that make it easier for me to not feel guilty about wanting the earth to get hit with an asteroid.

Hey, dude, why don't you answer my question: if we are so bad, how come you're better? why do you support "using animal products" ( which is whitewash for torture and killing of animals )?

[Sandman]

But when/if a time comes and we will no longer be needing the rainforest to do whatever it does(for example, much more efficient CO2->O converters than trees), then I would fully support cutting most of it down and filling the land with fields, farms and cities.

Why? That's no more beneficial to humanity than having a third kidney is to a human being.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Those early Kingdoms / Republics (especially rome) also thought that they have science and technology.
That is one of the big dangers (aside from the moral aspect of exploitation of animals), i.e. that we (as well as the early kingdoms/republics) probably even we often don´t know enough about the long term dangers which are involved in our exploitation of nature.

.
.
.

So IMHO there is no big difference between the people of ancient rome and the people nowadays. If there is the slightest doubt wether some exploitation of nhature will be harmful for ecology/humans/planet or whatever, the humans will choose to continue with their exploitation. Probably until it is too late to reverse the outcome.

Well, yes. But is there really another choice? The logical conclusion of your argument is that we should do nothing, that we should've stayed at the smart ape stage.

I mean, we are not 100% certain that having nuclear reactors wont destroy us in some way we never even thought of 10,000 years down the road. But the same could be said about fire or using tools.

What you said is correct, there is risk in everything we do and a long time ago we have chosen to take that risk. I dont see why we suddenly need to stop, especially when we are much more capable at evaluating that risk.

---

I forgot to reply to Sandman:

I don't think that human domination of nature necessarily translates into the sort of ethical pronouncements you're making. It's the standard is/ought problem.

But it does.
The nature of, well, nature, is to fill with animal and plant life any available(and suitable) niche. As a result, whatever we do will always cause a "conflict" with nature.
It's not an is/ought problem since the way it is now, is the only way it can ever be.

On an entirely different level, you seem to hold the opinion that when animals are destroyed it's always a result of progress, rather than stupidity or backwardness.

Well, no, I dont think so. Lots animals are killed for stupid reasons. But I dont see how it affects the argument.

And more to Sandman:

Why? That's no more beneficial to humanity than having a third kidney is to a human being.

Because having 6 billion happy humans is better than having 5 billion of them.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Eli
1.But it does.
The nature of, well, nature, is to fill with animal and plant life any available(and suitable) niche. As a result, whatever we do will always cause a "conflict" with nature.
It's not an is/ought problem since the way it is now, is the only way it can ever be.

2.Well, no, I dont think so. Lots animals are killed for stupid reasons. But I dont see how it affects the argument.

3.Because having 6 billion happy humans is better than having 5 billion of them.

1.You're still moving from an 'is' to an 'ought' - and the 'is' isn't very convincing to begin with. Sounds fairly mystical to me, not empirical at all.

2.You implied that it was OK some turtles were dying because humans were (somehow) benefiting, without explaining exactly how they were benefiting.

3.I'm more interested in human happiness than happy humans. Destroying the rainforest and then breeding a load of people to 'be happy' on the remains strikes me as a pointless and frankly risky exercise.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Eli
Well, yes. But is there really another choice? The logical conclusion of your argument is that we should do nothing, that we should've stayed at the smart ape stage.

I mean, we are not 100% certain that having nuclear reactors wont destroy us in some way we never even thought of 10,000 years down the road. But the same could be said about fire or using tools.

What you said is correct, there is risk in everything we do and a long time ago we have chosen to take that risk. I dont see why we suddenly need to stop, especially when we are much more capable at evaluating that risk.

---

Hm IMHO the difference lies within the calculability of the risks.
The risks of Atomic Energy are very well known and you can calculate a certain probability for one of the reactors turning into another Chernobyl (and AFAIK the risks, at least for the well maintained reactors of the estern states are very small [below 5%])

But the risks of a climate change (for example) cannot be calculated, as it is still disputed among scientists.
So can either classify the risk for climate change as very high (chance that those scientists are correct who think that an anthropogenic climate change occurs and it will negatively affect humankind) or you can classify it as incalculable/uncertain.

And in either case (i.e. risk either incalculable or high) I would argue that humankind shouldn´t take it.

You gave the example of the smart apes/early humans. IMHO between modern humans and smart apes/early humans there is a big difference:
We have a much greater impact on earth than smart apes/early humans had during their time.
The chance that our decisions will have a negative impact on earths ecosystem as a whole are much greater than the chance of the smart apes/early humans to do so ever was (there were also much less of them, over large periods of human history human population on earth was less than 1 Million specimens).

So we (modern humans) have to take much greater care to assess the risks involved in the things we do, than it was necessary for early humans.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sandman
1.You're still moving from an 'is' to an 'ought' - and the 'is' isn't very convincing to begin with. Sounds fairly mystical to me, not empirical at all.

Moving from an "is" to an "ought" is not forbidden if it's explained well.
Look on it this way:
A) There is a fixed amount of land*.
B) Almost everywhere on Earth and especially in areas not affected by humanity it's extremely difficult to find a place that has no life(animals/plants/whatever).
C) There is a negative correlation between the hospitability of areas populated by humans to animals, and the technological advancement and population growth of humans**.
D) More humans is better than less humans(not in all situations, but IMO correct in principle).
E) Better technology improves the human condition and therefore is good and should be strived to.
F) More humans need more land to live on and support them.

If I want to fulfill D and E, then from F, C and B, while keeping in mind A(this sentence sounds ridicilous ), I conclude that human progress must come "at the expense" of nature.

My argument is not "we've been always exploiting nature for our purposes(the "is") and therefore we should continue doing it(the "ought")". It is "there is no other way to improve our condition and therefore we should do it".

There is no meaning for "ought" or "ought not" when there is only one possible course of action to fulfill our goals.

You can dispute D and E, but then the debate becomes pointless since I(and IIUC Az, from his utilitarian POV) view them pretty much as axioms.

* - That's not completely true due to stuff like rising/falling water levels, etc, but such factors are negligeble.
** - There could be some miraculous technologies that render C false, but as a general trend it is correct.

2.You implied that it was OK some turtles were dying because humans were (somehow) benefiting, without explaining exactly how they were benefiting.

Actually I was just looking for an argument, my first post wasnt meant to make sense in the context of the OP.

3.I'm more interested in human happiness than happy humans. Destroying the rainforest and then breeding a load of people to 'be happy' on the remains strikes me as a pointless and frankly risky exercise.

Why?

Proteus_MST:

I agree. I definetely advocate caution and aggressive investment in clean technologies. IMO we do not understand the Earth enough to meddle with as much as we do now.

Note that all the actual policies I called for in this thread are Green. I diverge from them only in future scenarios when science and technology allow us to replace additional parts of nature more efficiently(and reasonably safely). In the rainforest scenario, the Greens would keep it there for the benefit of cobras and rare butterflies, I'd fill it with humans.

[Az]

E isn't necessarily true, but it has that potential.

Btw, Eli, I think you're a utilitarian, as well.

[Eli]

Oy vey.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Eli
Moving from an "is" to an "ought" is not forbidden if it's explained well.
Look on it this way:
A) There is a fixed amount of land*.
B) Almost everywhere on Earth and especially in areas not affected by humanity it's extremely difficult to find a place that has no life(animals/plants/whatever).
C) There is a negative correlation between the hospitability of areas populated by humans to animals, and the technological advancement and population growth of humans**.
D) More humans is better than less humans(not in all situations, but IMO correct in principle).
E) Better technology improves the human condition and therefore is good and should be strived to.
F) More humans need more land to live on and support them.

If I want to fulfill D and E, then from F, C and B, while keeping in mind A(this sentence sounds ridicilous ), I conclude that human progress must come "at the expense" of nature.

My argument is not "we've been always exploiting nature for our purposes(the "is") and therefore we should continue doing it(the "ought")". It is "there is no other way to improve our condition and therefore we should do it".

There is no meaning for "ought" or "ought not" when there is only one possible course of action to fulfill our goals.

You can dispute D and E, but then the debate becomes pointless since I(and IIUC Az, from his utilitarian POV) view them pretty much as axioms.

I think you have an simplistic view of 'exploiting nature'. All animals need to draw sustenance from their environment, and humans are no different.

But there's a difference between, say, building a house somewhere, and deliberately laying waste to an ecosystem because it's not 'useful' enough. It's like saying that if someone has some illegal downloads, they should also go on a murderous rampage, because both things are against the law.

I don't think much of some of your other assumptions either. For example, it's perfectly conceivable for humanity to continue to advance technologically even whilst maintaining a steady or declining ecological footprint. And you say land when what you mean is resources.

Being pro-population growth is not a defining characteristic of utilitarianism, either. Plenty of utilitarians (most of them, probably) were/are for limiting population growth to improve the well-being of humanity. Apart from anything else, it's not desirable to continually skirt on the edge of population overload.

Why?

There are plenty of arguments I can think of (all utilitarian), but ultimately it's creepy 'Year Zero' nihilism which has absolutely no chance of improving the condition of humanity. Like a third kidney has no chance of improving a human body.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sandman
I think you have an simplistic view of 'exploiting nature'. All animals need to draw sustenance from their environment, and humans are no different.

But there's a difference between, say, building a house somewhere, and deliberately laying waste to an ecosystem because it's not 'useful' enough. It's like saying that if someone has some illegal downloads, they should also go on a murderous rampage, because both things are against the law.

The analogy is false. The decision whether to replace a small ecosystem with a house because it would be more useful to someone to have a house instead of a meadow and the decision to replace a forest with a metropolis are both relying on the same system of considerations of utility to one or more human beings. They are simply on a different scale.

Your downloads&murder example is doing act #2 simply because it has one characteristic shared with act #1 which you already commited. It's simply not the same.
(act #2 being murder, #1 being illegal downloads and the shared characteristic is their illegality)

I don't think much of some of your other assumptions either. For example, it's perfectly conceivable for humanity to continue to advance technologically even whilst maintaining a steady or declining ecological footprint. And you say land when what you mean is resources.

Yes, the assumption of increased ecological footprint as a result of better technology is wrong, but it was redundant in the first place. The argument stands with "more people->more land" alone, without involving technology.

If I replace land with resources the argument becomes shaky since we dont use the same resources that animals use and even the things we call resources change all the time.
But that doesnt matter much, one fixed commodity is enough to make my point. I think territory is the main "bone of contention" between us and nature, if there are other resources that act similarly it only strengthens my point.

Being pro-population growth is not a defining characteristic of utilitarianism, either. Plenty of utilitarians (most of them, probably) were/are for limiting population growth to improve the well-being of humanity. Apart from anything else, it's not desirable to continually skirt on the edge of population overload.

Of course! If you're looking on today's situation, for example, I wouldnt look positively on a sudden doubling in the population of Africa.
Pure population growth is not the grand goal, what's the point in having lots of humans if they are all starving?

There are plenty of arguments I can think of (all utilitarian), but ultimately it's creepy 'Year Zero' nihilism which has absolutely no chance of improving the condition of humanity. Like a third kidney has no chance of improving a human body.

What's "Year Zero nihilism"?

[Az]

yep, you're a utilitarian, eli.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Your problem is that you think there is a reason to be sentinent. There isn't any reason to be that besides it gives an advantage in the fight for survival.

No, that is exactly the opposite of my problem. Of course there is no reason to be sentient. Sentience does not make us special. I am advocating that as sentient beings, we should make it special. If we can create a meaning for life, why should that meaning only include ourselves?

Originally posted by Eli
You simply painted one option in black("selfish biological machines", "stock broker") and the other in pretty colors("grew up to become a gardener") and then made the obvious choice.

Neither "selfish" and "stock broker" are inherently insulting terms. There is nothing wrong with selfishness, providing you do not harm anyone else. (And I would include anything else.) If you perceive selfishness as the "painted black" option, then why are you supporting it?

Where is the justification? How can you justify not going the course that does maximum good to ourselves? How can you justify having more rhinos and elephants stomping around when the price is having less people living less fulfilling lives?

Nowhere has anyone shown a specific example where preserving an ecosystem or species has harmed humanity in any way. But ignoring pragmatism for a moment, why does it need any justification? What makes ourselves worth more than any other leaf of life? The only reason we believe that, is because for a billion years it has been advantageous for us to act as if it were so. With all our present technological power, to continue to act the same way is needless, and ultimately self-destructive.

You are all focusing on how much damage will be done to non-human, non-sentient life. Why do you ignore the enormous benefits to human life?

What enormous benefits that require the damage to non-human life? Our rich technological society can be developed upwards rather than outwards. The whole point of technology is finding new ways to do things.

If you visualize our progress as a trail, you'll see trillions of animal corpses lying behind us, surrounded by millions of extinct species and thousands of ruined habitats...

The view that i'm advocating is nothing new. We've been always doing it, all our accomplishments are based on using nature for our purposes.

Nature is finite. We can find equilibrium, or we can destroy it. And once we've destroyed it, there will still be inequality, and we can destroy ourselves.

[Sandman]

The analogy is false. The decision whether to replace a small ecosystem with a house because it would be more useful to someone to have a house instead of a meadow and the decision to replace a forest with a metropolis are both relying on the same system of considerations of utility to one or more human beings. They are simply on a different scale.

Your downloads&murder example is doing act #2 simply because it has one characteristic shared with act #1 which you already commited. It's simply not the same.
(act #2 being murder, #1 being illegal downloads and the shared characteristic is their illegality)

But they're not using the same considerations. Building a home is perfectly reasonable under virtually any ethical system, whereas annihilating an entire ecosystem for some mechanical conception of utility is not.

Another analogy: A town with a historic centre. You can renovate the buildings so they have modern amenities... or bulldoze the whole lot and put up a larger shopping centre instead. The same system of considerations?

Yes, the assumption of increased ecological footprint as a result of better technology is wrong, but it was redundant in the first place. The argument stands with "more people->more land" alone, without involving technology.

If I replace land with resources the argument becomes shaky since we dont use the same resources that animals use and even the things we call resources change all the time. But that doesnt matter much, one fixed commodity is enough to make my point. I think territory is the main "bone of contention" between us and nature, if there are other resources that act similarly it only strengthens my point.

You can have more people without using more land as well. Improved farming techniques and skyscrapers and so on. Or you can have more 'natural' farming techiques that leave less of an ecological footprint.

What's "Year Zero nihilism"?

Year Zero. Pol Pot's plan. Your one won't be much better.

You'll need to disperse or exterminate the inhabitants of the rainforest, since they won't take kindly to their livelihoods being destroyed. So that's a nasty guerilla war right away. I suppose the remaining natives will get re-educated.

Your plan is also involves massive expenditure - subduing the natives, subduing the popular outcry, building farms for no reason, building cities for no reason and finally finding enough people to live in the money-sinks that have been created.

And those CO2 converters won't come cheap, either. Let's hope they don't fail.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Eli
If I want to fulfill D and E, then from F, C and B, while keeping in mind A(this sentence sounds ridicilous ), I conclude that human progress must come "at the expense" of nature.

My argument is not "we've been always exploiting nature for our purposes(the "is") and therefore we should continue doing it(the "ought")". It is "there is no other way to improve our condition and therefore we should do it".

There is no meaning for "ought" or "ought not" when there is only one possible course of action to fulfill our goals.

You can dispute D and E, but then the debate becomes pointless since I(and IIUC Az, from his utilitarian POV) view them pretty much as axioms.

Sorry, should have read this first. I dispute D. Humans suck.