futerko wrote: ↑
Fri Dec 27, 2019 4:10 am
The real confusion for me is this...
The argument that what manifests is mere appearance is here being associated with the right.
The issue concerning the truth of perceived objects is here being associated with the left.
That means that I cannot in good faith align with the left.
I 'bumped' into Ann Gleig on facebook over this a while ago. I see it as fundamentally misguided. While "taking the fight" to the right might mean accepting their terms of the argument, it seems to me the left has given up its fundamentals.
There are people on *both* the right and left who are not climate sceptic yet have an inadequate knowledge of the science and how it should be influencing policy and governance.
It's not about taking the fight to the right or putting the left on some progressive faultless pedestal. The fact of the matter is that even left, liberal responses like carbon trading, taxes and so on are still massively inadequate.
This is why it's vital for a comprehensive understanding of the science being referenced for any subsequent conversation to be useful. I rarely see this, even among those on the left. The green new deals carbon taxes, offsettts, tree planting etc. Still not enough - risk perception, mitigation and response uunderstanding is still very basic in general for those outside or unaware of how these fields work. Funnily enough it's Insurance companies that are pushing things forward in this regard since their entire business models are based on risk perception.
ME’S PERSON OF THE YEAR
Re: Why Greta Thunberg Should Be Time’s Person of the Year
by futerko » Fri Dec 27, 2019 5:40 am
In very simple terms. There is no rational path where the possibility of something bad occurring results in a "let's wait and see" attitude - we have already taken a bit of a psychopathic turn...
but, on the other hand, any claim to know the truth is the very mark of ideology...
This is why we have something called the precautionary principle. If there is a significant risk, but there is a high or middling degree of uncertainty, then it's more responsible and sensible ;socially, economically, ecologically to take precautions rather than saying
" well no one really knows "
We have paleoclimatic records from long in our planets past that can help us inform where we are now and what could happen based upon what happened in the past under the swme conditons- the current state of temperatures, c02, rate of glacial melts and other tipping points all point towards a literal existential risk for much of life on the planet. It's not an overstatement. There is uncertainty for sure, but it's not tilted in our favour - we know with certainty there will be damage but we can't say for sure the extent and so mass action is a precaution we should reallty take to minimise the damage from future water, food, weather shocks.