Originally posted by Kuciwalker
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
[serious] Charity thread
Collapse
X
-
Dude, you can't get 50% precision on the questions I've asked. Don't tell me that's objective.
Yes, the inputs are objective. But the impacts are not. We cannot reasonably quantify the impacts in economic terms, beyond scattered and incomplete direct and obvious effects studied over a short period of time.
Diet today is a classic case of consumer imperfect knowledge causing a massive market distortion.Last edited by Ecofarm; April 17, 2010, 13:50.
Comment
-
We must be able to at least agree what impacts are "bad", before we can claim objectivity. Quantifying the impacts is one way of proving this. How can you laim we have an objective view of impacts when people do not agree what impacts matter let alone how much.
Is a carbon tax an objective number? No, it's subjective almost to the point of being arbitrary.
Comment
-
If the total is objective, then the numbers are indisputable.
Total yardage for Tim Tebow last year = objective fact.
Total impact of 1 ton of carbon emission = largely arbitrary number.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ecofarm View PostIf the total is objective, then the numbers are indisputable.
We are nowhere near the level of knowledge needed to calculate what carbon emissions do and different people prefer different methods of arriving at estimates.
Comment
-
That's the case with the majority of environmental impacts.
It's nice to think we've got it all figured out and know exactly what does what but the unforunate truth is we don't. That's the first step... realizing how much we don't know. Environmental science (or "Impact Science") is a relatively new discipline. Only in the last couple decades have universities begun to offer multidisciplinary graduate degrees, so that we can begin to quantify environmental impacts including the economic, social and ecologic factors.
That's why I'm gonna teach public highschool. To give back and to talk-up this new discipline, in hopes of science garnering the next Sylvia Earle or Rachel Carson.
Originally posted by Kuciwalker View PostI can't believe we're having this conversation. You are a ****ing moron. Goodbye.
BA Environmental Studies
MSc International Environmental Science
PhD (candidate) Interdisciplinary Ecology (agriculture specializing in gender)
Let's be honest and realistic about our knowledge.Last edited by Ecofarm; April 17, 2010, 14:19.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ecofarm View PostThat's why I'm gonna teach public highschool. To give back and to talk-up this new discipline, in hopes of science garnering the next Sylvia Earle or Rachel Carson.
Also, Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths. She has had a profoundly evil impact on the world.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten View PostI don't get any love?I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Comment
Comment