Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
Well the difference being of course if you stopped child labor in Canada those children are no longer working. But ok keep doubling (tripling?) down.
|
I think you have been doubling down on a bad argument?
Your assertion is; Individual action is meaningless because collective action is required. But this logic is fallacious and leads to the inevitable conclusion that no action should be taken by anyone.
China - "Canada's per capita emissions are higher"
Canada - "We don't have a big enough population to make a difference"
US - "We don't have to believe facts if we don't want to"
Africa - "Everyone else got to burn fuel to industrialize"..............
Everyone can justify a lack action by drawing on a limited individualistic prospective rather than considering a large and complex system.
We should start the conversation with one important question.
Do you think climate change is a problem that people can/should collectively strive towards addressing?
If yes, then we can start talking about what changes we can / are willing to make to address this problem. I think there is allot of very interesting middle ground and room for discussion across the political spectrum on this topic, but none of those positions include "we should do nothing because it wont have an impact". If you agree the climate requires consideration when making decisions, then lets have that conversation, how much do you discount different considerations when building your model of the world;
If no, there is no conversation to be had about Canadian emission making a difference. Your belief is routed in idea that climate is not a problem. If this is your opinion I do not believe your concession is genuine, that something needs to be done about climate. It would appear your real opinion is that nothing needs to be done about the climate. I don't find this a particularly interesting conversation, because it is such a ridiculous you are afraid to come out and say it directly.
I put a pretty high value on Climate in my model, to the point that if someone is unwilling to engage directly with the need to take some form of action, I put a 100% discount on their political opinions, this is among the reason I will not be voting UPC, because they at the very least signal to this prospective. Out side of not voting for them, I don't have an opinion yet.
I also think the economy is a very important factor to consider. I do have a personal stake in my current well being above and beyond the future well being of others. But even if you give 100% weight to the climate, there are reasons to make economic consideration;
A slowing economy might delay the adoption of new technology,
Technology might offer a faster way out of this problem than nature allows for,
I believe western political/economic dominance provides better options for resolving the problem than other potential systems, and I think it is fair to believe that a lack of regard for our economic health would allow other systems to complete for dominance. (just look at the way political norms in the US have been eroded, due the many sensing a lack of economic health).