South Carolinians Still Think Global Warming is a Hoax

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Correct. They aren't. But fossil fuel interests have $20-30 Trillion or more at stake in 'stranded assets' of unburnable carbon (in the form of coal, oil, natural gas). And they have >$2 Trillion in investments/debt in current fossil fuel projects. By my math, $20-30 Trillion is at LEAST 1000x more money 'at risk' than ANY 'people connected to the government' are making; that figure is probably MUCH closer to 10,000x or 100,000x.

It may not occur this decade, but within 25 years, this will become apparent, and the potential shock to the world economy will make 2007-8 look like a cakewalk in comparison (that is, if we continue on a 'lollipops and candyland' plan toward fossil fuel infrastructure and continued reliance). We can prevent that from happening by taking aggressive/proactive actions now, instead of waiting another decade.

Thus, fossil fuel interests (oil, coal) have a highly vested interest in DELAYING their assets from becoming stranded - extracting as much as possible in the meantime before it becomes openly apparent. The biggest oil 'losers' will be Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, Iran, PetroChina.
China, US, India and Australia are the biggest losers from a coal production perspective - the fact that China is near the top in BOTH of these lists is a fair bet as to why they are also leading the charge on solar - because they KNOW their fossil fuel production/revenue is going to take a BIG hit in the coming decades.

I do wonder if Americans would have a different attitude on renewables, if they realized that shifting away from fossil fuels would pretty much destroy the economies of Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran financially. (Very likely another pressure on Iran to stop it's nuclear efforts and get it's oil revenues over the next decade while it still can).

I think it is reasonably likely that interests from those 3 countries (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran) are supporting many of the anti-GW initiatives in the US and worldwide, as they have the MOST to lose.

Yep. As I suggested in another thread, Saudi Arabia is pretty clearly trying to convert their oil wealth into currency while that oil still has value. And they don't really care if that drives prices down because the worst possible thing they could face is the world finally getting serious about clamping down on fossil fuels while they still have a lot of oil in the ground.

 

[Vroom_C14]

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think you're closer to getting it than you realize. All ethics are based on consequences, fear if you will. You have constructed a theology that removes that. Hence if one actually follows the view you are championing, you are not ethical. I suspect you don't actually follow your theology. Most religious people, even those by another name don't, but that brings up a raft of other points.

You've raised so many good points that I hate to push back on one of them for fear of diluting the rest, but I disagree with the highlighted part.

The better ethics, I would argue, is not based on fear or even so much on consequences as on setting an example. Think of people we admire. Isn't that mostly because they set a good example? Think of the golden rule and it's variations. More "I want to be treated like this" than "I fear you won't treat me like this."

There are, of course, plenty of people who are ethically motivated by fear, as you suggest. But not all. And not the best of us.

Defending Your Life is a movie worth watching, if you haven't seen it.

 

[naturalmwa]

You've raised so many good points that I hate to push back on one of them for fear of diluting the rest, but I disagree with the highlighted part.

The better ethics, I would argue, is not based on fear or even so much on consequences as on setting an example. Think of people we admire. Isn't that mostly because they set a good example? Think of the golden rule and it's variations. More "I want to be treated like this" than "I fear you won't treat me like this."

There are, of course, plenty of people who are ethically motivated by fear, as you suggest. But not all. And not the best of us.

Defending Your Life is a movie worth watching, if you haven't seen it.

But why is that person setting a good example? I would suggest its because he fears setting a bad one. The golden rule and reciprocity is all about consequences. You treat others well because you fear the consequence of treating them poorly. Or you fear missing out on receiving good treatment. Fear is the root of good.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

But why is that person setting a good example? I would suggest its because he fears setting a bad one. The golden rule and reciprocity is all about consequences. You treat others well because you fear the consequence of treating them poorly. Or you fear missing out on receiving good treatment. Fear is the root of good.

Metafear?

Where you say "you treat others well because you fear the consequence of treating them poorly," I say "you treat others well because you think that encourages reciprocation." Yours is a fear of negative consequences. Mine could be seen as bid for positive consequences, true enough, but could also be seen as a good in itself. Either way, fear is not the prime motivator.

 

[naturalmwa]

Metafear?

Where you say "you treat others well because you fear the consequence of treating them poorly," I say "you treat others well because you think that encourages reciprocation." Yours is a fear of negative consequences. Mine could be seen as bid for positive consequences, true enough, but could also be seen as a good in itself. Either way, fear is not the prime motivator.

You still fear not receiving the positive consequences. Consequences are still the motivator if you are acting with a goal. Even if that goal is just to feel the better man.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You still fear not receiving the positive consequences. Consequences are still the motivator if you are acting with a goal. Even if that goal is just to feel the better man.

Now you are deep into Ayn Rand territory. Every act is a selfish act if you dig deep enough. But what's the point in statements about "fear of consequences" or "selfishness" if you have to drill down and down until you reach some bedrock of a priori self-reinforcement?

You say my desire for positive consequences or even for just feeling good about my actions is simply a fear of not receiving positive consequences or not feeling good about my actions. I might argue that I could just turn that around as say that your fear is really just a desire. But what would that prove?

Since I don't think this is just semantics, let me point you to experimental situations that suggest that these are are not merely the same thing. You can, for example, put animals on schedules of reinforcement where either access to food (a presumptive reward) is offered for "correct" behavior, or formerly free access is cut off in the absence of the same correct behavior.

In the context of our discussion, you might say that one animal will act out of desire for food while the other animal will act out of fear of food deprivation. Are they the same motivations? Can one merely be translated into the other?

 

[naturalmwa]

Now you are deep into Ayn Rand territory. Every act is a selfish act if you dig deep enough. But what's the point in statements about "fear of consequences" or "selfishness" if you have to drill down and down until you reach some bedrock of a priori self-reinforcement?

You say my desire for positive consequences or even for just feeling good about my actions is simply a fear of not receiving positive consequences or not feeling good about my actions. I might argue that I could just turn that around as say that your fear is really just a desire. But what would that prove?

Since I don't think this is just semantics, let me point you to experimental situations that suggest that these are are not merely the same thing. You can, for example, put animals on schedules of reinforcement where either access to food (a presumptive reward) is offered for "correct" behavior, or formerly free access is cut off in the absence of the same correct behavior.

In the context of our discussion, you might say that one animal will act out of desire for food while the other animal will act out of fear of food deprivation. Are they the same motivations? Can one merely be translated into the other?

Fear or desire are all the same in this discussion. They're just ways of expressing consequentialism. My statement was "All ethics are based on consequences". So yes, both animals are motivated by consequence.

 

[strummingram]

Fear is the root of good.

And you're calling ME dangerous? I think (I hope) you're just going with a poor choice of words to convey your message.

It's very simple; You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do (Dean Smith). Not because you have expectations for it being reciprocated. It WILL BE reciprocated if you do it instinctively, without the expectation! If you're doing good things because you don't want bad things happening, or being done, to you (good and bad being purely relative of course), then I question your values system. It's quite clear that you never managed to remove the Catholic coat. I don't condemn you, but I'm glad I'm not stuck there.

It's also important to understand that you're not superior, or inferior, to anyone else.

 

[naturalmwa]

And you're calling ME dangerous? I think (I hope) you're just going with a poor choice of words to convey your message.

It's very simple; You do the right thing because it's the right thing to do (Dean Smith). Not because you have expectations for it being reciprocated. It WILL BE reciprocated if you do it instinctively, without the expectation! If you're doing good things because you don't want bad things happening, or being done, to you (good and bad being purely relative of course), then I question your values system. I don't condemn you, but I'm glad I'm not stuck there.

It's also important to understand that you're not superior, or inferior, to anyone else.

Thats silly, why would that be important?

 

[strummingram]

Thats silly, why would that be important?

Because humility is a very necessary grounding emotion.It's necessary for personal balance, and therefore balance of all of us.

I don't think you've left behind the religion you were brought-up in as much as you think you have.

 

[naturalmwa]

Because humility is a very necessary grounding emotion.It's necessary for personal balance, and therefore balance of all of us.

I don't think you've left behind the religion you were brought-up in as much as you think you have.

What is the purpose of humility?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Fear or desire are all the same in this discussion. They're just ways of expressing consequentialism. My statement was "All ethics are based on consequences". So yes, both animals are motivated by consequence.

ACTUALLY, your statement was "All ethics are based on consequences, fear if you will."

And my disagreement was mainly aimed at the fear part. My specific statement was "The better ethics, I would argue, is not based on fear or even so much on consequences as on setting an example."

 

[strummingram]

What is the purpose of humility?

You're not being serious asking that, are you?

 

[tarheelbybirth]

If the universe/planet/nature/God wants the human species gone, we're gone. We cannot opt-out of that.

The only thing that can knowingly end our existence is us. The universe/planet/nature/God doesn't "want" anything as far as humans are concerned.

 

[naturalmwa]

ACTUALLY, your statement was "All ethics are based on consequences, fear if you will."

And my disagreement was mainly aimed at the fear part. My specific statement was "The better ethics, I would argue, is not based on fear or even so much on consequences as on setting an example."

Fear is just word for realizing there are consequences at stake that can either harm or help you. Consequentialism is the core philosophy. If you want to argue the point, then you'll need to understand the root of my statement. The opposite philosophical school that things are good or bad in there own right has much support, mostly from a theological base. I find it rather lacking in its logic and incongruent with my own materialist views of the universe.

 

[naturalmwa]

You're not being serious asking that, are you?

I'm trying to lead you to the answer because you lack the humility to accept it as a gift.

 

[strummingram]

ACTUALLY, your statement was "All ethics are based on consequences, fear if you will."

And my disagreement was mainly aimed at the fear part. My specific statement was "The better ethics, I would argue, is not based on fear or even so much on consequences as on setting an example."

I'm not sure I like the "better" part, but I agree with what I think you mean in this exchange with Natural. I'm frankly shocked by what I'm learning about the guy in this part of the thread. Maybe not shocked, but quite surprised.

 

[strummingram]

I'm trying to lead you to the answer because you lack the humility to accept it as a gift.

Oh, of course.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What is the purpose of humility?

I don't see much point in the humility part, but I think strum was correct on the superiority/inferiority part. Mainly because there are just too many instance in human history where feeling superior, or convincing yourself that others are inferior, results in atrocities.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't see much point in the humility part, but I think strum was correct on the superiority/inferiority part. Mainly because there are just too many instance in human history where feeling superior, or convincing yourself that others are inferior, results in atrocities.

So the problem here are in the results. The CONSEQUENCES make it unethical.

See how this works Strumm? I can't be Socrates if you won't be Plato.

 

[strummingram]

The only thing that can knowingly end our existence is us. The universe/planet/nature/God doesn't "want" anything as far as humans are concerned.

I agree. We ARE a part of (or even make up what is) the universe/planet/nature/God. I wish there was a word that would encompass the various understandings of that. I also agree, it wants nor needs nothing from us.

 

[strummingram]

I don't see much point in the humility part, but I think strum was correct on the superiority/inferiority part. Mainly because there are just too many instance in human history where feeling superior, or convincing yourself that others are inferior, results in atrocities.

Bingo. I need you to be my translator sometimes.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So the problem here are in the results. The CONSEQUENCES make it unethical.

See how this works Strumm? I can't be Socrates if you won't be Plato.

I don't disagree that consequences are important. Or even that they can or should shape ethics. Just that fear is not the necessary driver of morality. Desire for good consequences strikes me as a sounder foundation than fear of bad consequences.

I liked the Socrates reference. You probably know, but I'm pretty sure Plato never appeared in any of his dialogues. So I guess we'll have to arm wrestle to decide who gets to be Socrates. Then again, Socrates was reputedly old and ugly, so you may want to concede.

 

[naturalmwa]

I don't disagree that consequences are important. Or even that they can or should shape ethics. Just that fear is not the necessary driver of morality. Desire for good consequences strikes me as a sounder foundation than fear of bad consequences.

I liked the Socrates reference. You probably know, but I'm pretty sure Plato never appeared in any of his dialogues. So I guess we'll have to arm wrestle to decide who gets to be Socrates. Then again, Socrates was reputedly old and ugly, so you may want to concede.

I did know, but wanted to pick a familiar and favorable reference.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I agree. We ARE a part of (or even make up what is) the universe/planet/nature/God. I wish there was a word that would encompass the various understandings of that. I also agree, it wants nor needs nothing from us.

But the way you phrase it makes it sound like we have no control. Since nothing exists that could "want" the human species to disappear except us, we have total control on that front.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

But the way you phrase it makes it sound like we have no control. Since nothing exists that could "want" the human species to disappear except us, we have total control on that front.

Well said. I wanted to push back on that, too, but the words eluded me.

 

[strummingram]

But the way you phrase it makes it sound like we have no control. Since nothing exists that could "want" the human species to disappear except us, we have total control on that front.

Well, that wasn't my intention to "phrase it" that way. My apologies. We absolutely have control. But, if it ends-up that the human species is gone, then that is what we collectively wanted. It has to be, because... that's what happened (if it does). Or, maybe the opposite will occur. We only have direct control over ourselves, individually. Collectively is a much more complex operation. That's where I have much less optimism.

This left vs. right, democrat vs. republican, method doesn't show me very much to be encouraged about regarding the future. In fact, looking for actual contributions, progress, or results through the political process is pretty dismal. As far as this Global Warming/Climate Change issue is concerned; using the political process to get results will guarantee that it won't progress. It will become yet another bargaining chip/point of contention for these shills that call themselves politicians. So, if it is indeed true that we've made, and are making, the earth uninhabitable for ourselves, then trying to right the ship through the political process will slam us into the iceberg faster. It has become institutionalized. Just like healthcare, religion, abortion, gun control, you name it. It has become a cash cow for lobbyists and politicians and those who own them all. The bigger picture- like will the planet be able to sustain us- is of little actual concern to the institution in that cycle. The individuals care, but because of this 2-sided entity that has become the accepted method of governance, we've minimized our chances immensely... through THAT process.

Now, individually, I do everything I can in my home and with those I am in contact with in person. But, arguing with people who are sworn disciples of that part of the institution that denies it will be an end-game factor, is a waste of time, to me. You're not going to change their mind. They're not going to change yours. That is the system we've created.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

The bigger picture- like will the planet be able to sustain us- is of little actual concern to the institution in that cycle. The individuals care, but because of this 2-sided entity that has become the accepted method of governance, we've minimized our chances immensely... through THAT process.

Soooo...totalitarianism? Three-sided or five-sided or ten-sided certainly doesn't improve on the model and the option that humanity will reject govt and live in sweet harmony is just ridiculous.

 

[strummingram]

Soooo...totalitarianism? Three-sided or five-sided or ten-sided certainly doesn't improve on the model and the option that humanity will reject govt and live in sweet harmony is just ridiculous.

I didn't imply, or mean to imply, that it would. I'm not even implying to "reject government" at all. I'm simply saying that by depending, or relying, on correcting this THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS NOW will not change the course of this issue. That much is obvious to me. But, if it's not to you, or others, then, by all means, continue to argue with each other. From what a great many of you who believe it's going to end our existence have offered, it sounds to me like it's already beyond the point of altering the course anyway. I'm not personally convinced that it is an end-game issue. But, I do recycle virtually everything I acquire, in whatever method is available to do so. I try to be as "green" as I possibly can. I'm totally on-board with contributing as much as I possibly can to balancing it out. But, arguing with people who are convinced it's a lie is a waste of time.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

From what a great many of you who believe it's going to end our existence have offered, it sounds to me like it's already beyond the point of altering the course anyway.

I don't believe that. Never even thought it. We're very adaptable. The near-worst case scenario will mean far fewer of us, of course. And if you think it's beyond altering, you haven't been paying attention.

 

[strummingram]

I don't believe that. Never even thought it. We're very adaptable. The near-worst case scenario will mean far fewer of us, of course. And if you think it's beyond altering, you haven't been paying attention.

I never said I thought it was beyond altering. If I thought that, I wouldn't go to the lengths I go to trying to recycle virtually everything that I don't eat, poop out, pee out, or cannot dispose of without recycling. I only drive a car 1 day out of the week, unless there is some emergency that my bike won't allow. I don't do all of that because I think it's already past saving.

 

[strummingram]

I made one of these


In the summer, it powers one of these:

 

[naturalmwa]

I made one of these

View embedded media

In the summer, it powers one of these:

View embedded media

Now thats a good story.