The best argument that I have seen against radical "global warming" policy changes, is the positive argument proposed by Dr. Michael Crichten of Andromeda Strain fame.
Let's concede for argument's sake that man-made causes are aggravating global warming to a potentially dangerous level and that the world will undergo detrimental effects in several decades. Is there anyone who cannot imagine that we will live in a different world with different rules and priorities by then. does anyone imagine that technology will not progress sufficiently to make the unknowable and undoable of today cheap, easy or not worth doing in the future. Let's look back a few decades and see what has happened. Epidemic diseases polio and smallpox are now gone, non-issues. Airplanes make travel across the US and across the world fairly inexpensive and easy. People regularly live 20-30 years longer and they are healthier throughout. Smoking has been found to be dangerous and has reduced greatly as a common habit. Infections can now be treated. The human genome has been mapped. Space is reachable. Communication around the world is affordable and easy. Television, movies, image manipulation are at levels unimaginable in the 20s and 30's. E.g. in 1939, color was first introduced in the movies, and television made its first appearance at the world's fair exhibition in those years. This list could be very long.
In fact, is there anyone who would like to buy a computer now for a birthday present to give someone three years from now. What would cost thousands of dollars today will be inexpensive in 3 years and things that do not exist now will be available.
Is there anything in the realm of science and technology that Teddy Roosevelt could have done to help us with a problem that he had foreseen affecting our generation? How about Coolidge? Hoover? FDR? Billions to manage the polio and flu epidemics in the future? The answer is, not really. I imagine that in several decades the problem will be quantified and detected precisely, not just with innuendo, the main culprits being blamed today will no longer be in use in the same way, ways of dealing with the problem will develop using technology that we may not even know about yet. Certainly, anything that we can do today for billions of dollars that it would cost will be much less expensive and much more easily achievable. So, should we be irresponsible and leave this problem to our grandchildren? Or should we be responsible and and buy them a computer now for their needs in 80 years? It would seem that being irresponsible is the only responsible thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't see how the fact that other problems have been solved means we shouldn't deal with something that is a problem right now. That's just stupidity. Global warming or not, we are destroying our planet little by little and species are disappearing all over the earth. Our air and our oceans are polluted, and there is enough evidence to suggest that it has significant health effects on humans. That argument is just stupid. You are just as bad as the Haredim denying scientific facts if u do not at least accept the fact that in one way or another we are destroying the world and that it has to be addressed asap.
Because it is not a problem now. It may be a problem in 50 years. We would not want to deal with today's problems in 1960, with 1960 technology and 1960 experience, but that is exactly what warmists want us to do with global warming. Their case is becoming more shaky by the day, but we should give them control over major sectors of the economy because of what might happen in 50 years. That is stupidity.
It is a side point really, but I am not against conservation and certain green measures. I like animals but I am not in PETA. I believe in clean air and water, but I am not in Greenpeace. Global warming is a controversial science, and every world leader in Copenhagen saw that, adn Kyoto for that matter.
Post a Comment