ACism and global warming

[wtfsvi]

This seems like an obivous question, so I'm sure it has been asked before. I didn't have luck during my 2 minutes with the search function, though. How would ACland deal with the threat of global warming? If individuals in ACland are not fine with giving up personal comfort for the environment, does that mean doing nothing about global warming is ok and the people in Bangladesh will just have to deal with being flooded? Maybe you could point me to some article(s) about ACism and the environment.

You might say that the state isn't doing anything to stop global warming either, so it's a wash. That might be true about the US state, but maybe that's because the US is closer to ACism than most other countries. (I don't mean to say any state does enough to counter global warming, but there are certainly states doing more than what the US is doing.)

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems like an obivous question, so I'm sure it has been asked before. I didn't have luck during my 2 minutes with the search function, though. How would ACland deal with the threat of global warming? If individuals in ACland are not fine with giving up personal comfort for the environment, does that mean doing nothing about global warming is ok and the people in Bangladesh will just have to deal with being flooded? Maybe you could point me to some article(s) about ACism and the environment.

You might say that the state isn't doing anything to stop global warming either, so it's a wash. That might be true about the US state, but maybe that's because the US is closer to ACism than most other countries. (I don't mean to say any state does enough to counter global warming, but there are certainly states doing more than what the US is doing.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[Borodog]

Holy [censored], adios. I just discovered your user number.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own. I'm sure you see how that is worrying to me if I were to consider becoming an anarchist.

especially this question is what I want answered: If individuals in Y are not fine with giving up personal comfort to stop bad thing X, does that mean the citizens of Z will just have to deal with the negative consequences of that, and you don't think there's anything that could or should be done? Global warming is just an example of this kind of scenario. If you don't think it's likely enough that Bangladesh would be flooded, use another example like the citizens in ACland building nuclear power plants with weak safety.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that your original post makes some premises which I'll highlight here:

1) Global warming presents a threat. The degree and nature of the threat was not elaborated on but with your comment on "flooding Bangladesh" I think it's fair to say that you believe global warming present a threat that would cause great human suffering at the very least. If you believe this is not the case could you elaborate on what you believe the nature of the threat is.

2) That there is something that needs to be done to counteract that threat i.e. the threat can be mitigated.

3) What needs to be done to counteract the threat is well known and proven to work effectively.

4) There are states that are actually counteracting the threat effectively.

Sorry but none of these 4 are a given or proven. In any kind of exercise of logic that I know of, one can basically arrive at any conclusion they desire by using false premises. You haven't offered any prove for one these let alone all of them. Many folks will say that 1) and 2) are proven (I don't agree at all). Some will state that 3) is true as well . I think that 4) is an act of faith.

It's hard to really answer a question when the premises for the question are so open to debate IMO. One of my pet peeves is that people assume crap is true that is spewed to them from the media, government, etc. all the time that they shouldn't assume is true IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you see how that is worrying to me if I were to consider becoming an anarchist.


especially this question is what I want answered: If individuals in Y are not fine with giving up personal comfort to stop bad thing X, does that mean the citizens of Z will just have to deal with the negative consequences of that, and you don't think there's anything that could or should be done? Global warming is just an example of this kind of scenario. If you don't think it's likely enough that Bangladesh would be flooded, use another example like the citizens in ACland building nuclear power plants with weak safety.

[/ QUOTE ]


Ok I'm not an ACist so I'll defer to them. I will say that don't be reluctant to pose questions in an abstract manner because IMO the vast majority of posters on this forum can handle abstract concepts quite well.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but none of these 4 are a given or proven. In any kind of exercise of logic that I know of, one can basically arrive at any conclusion they desire by using false premises. You haven't offered any prove for one these let alone all of them. Many folks will say that 1) and 2) are proven (I don't agree at all). Some will state that 3) is true as well . I think that 4) is an act of faith.

[/ QUOTE ] I state quite clearly in my OP that I don't think 4) is true. Anyway you accept the more abstract question, so nothing to argue about.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that if I ask a Fundamentalist Christian what should be done to prepare for Judgment Day, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an Agnostic or Athiest he will attack the Christian's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own. I'm sure you see how this makes perfect sense due to to the individuals' differing beliefs about reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wtfsvi]

That's a horribly butchered fix of my post. Do you mean that ACists don't believe global warming is a problem in the same way that atheists don't believe judgement day is a problem? (I'm pretty sure the only reason atheists don't deal with the problem of judgement day is that they don't think the problem exists.) That seems like an outragous claim, but ignoring that: I'm not interested in a scientific discussion around global warming. If you don't think global warming is a problem, skip to my abstract question with people Y and X and the bad consequences of Z.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean that ACists don't believe global warming is a problem in the same way that atheists don't believe judgement day is a problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

All of them? No. Many if not most (assuming you mean man-made global warming)? Yes. Of course I'm not AC and can't speak for them, but given their distrust of government and that most MMGW data is produced with government funding, I'm not surprised that there is a healthy amount of skepticism. I figured you assumed the same since your characterization was that ACists would necessarily attack the premise of the question (as an atheist would). Maybe it wasn't a perfect parallel, but certainly the reaction you describe is not unexpected or illogical.

The XYZ debate is difficult, and I'm not sure the solution. The problem I guess comes in whether you can prove Y's actions actually cause X to harm Z.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pretty easy to do. The vast majority of the technology breakthroughs in energy are occurring at university and national labs.