--- Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> (snip)
> " If we implement say the Kyoto treaty it will have adverse effects
> (with a very high probability, IMO), but the warming that is
> predicted...is it sufficient to result in mass extinctions? Also, you
> ignore the possibility that the warming to date is not totally due to
> anthropogenic sources (i.e. we may not be able to stop all the warming
> and
> attempting to do so will result in an even worse outcome)."
>
> Well, if we use Pascal's view of the precautionary principle, it doesn't
> really matter what the cause, or the possibility of making any
> difference.
> It simply says that all things being equal, it is better to act
> (believe)
> than not (dis-belief). The argument, given the nature of this list, is
> an
> ethical one, not economic. If it were economic then I think you would be
> quite correct about having to consider probabilistic issues. I'm just
> saying
> that the most ethical policy should be one of action, not inaction in
> regards global warming.
Why? What do you think happens when the U.S. economy takes a nose dive?
The phrase "Wall Street sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold"
comes to mind.
I am not saying that economic well being is the only criterion that should
be used, but is it ethical to take an action that will adversely affect
many millions even billions of people (don't forget the U.S. imports lots
of stuff and lots of people all over the world rely on that trade for
their jobs) and not consider what will happen to these people? Shouldn't
these things be there somewhere in the calculus, thought process, decision
making process? Seems that way to me.
I guess my question is why does the ethical action have to ignore other
elements such as the probability of an event occuring or the cost of the
event (or non-event)? Seems a bit odd to me.
I guess to me I find the question of
"Assuming the economic well being of a whole heck of alot of people aside
and ignoring the probabilities involved...should we do something about
global warming?"
is really really boring. The answer is yes, because all of the things
that make the question difficult to answer have been assumed away.
Steve
=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|