Response to T
For the most part I agree with the comments made by T. I believe that both he and I have nothing but good intentions for our philosophical musings. We are trying to find some sort of overarching guidance for our behavior that will help us make the tough decisions as they arrive in life. As such I also believe there is a common ground to be discovered in the instances where we do disagree. Our goals are likely the same and with effort our conclusions may become the same as well.
In one section of his comments T pointed out that both objectivists and environmentalists demonstrate irrational thinking when it comes to management the natural world.
In an especially good statement he sums up the inherent flaw of blindly rejecting the entire environmental movement: “…if the world is truly deteriorating and we are at fault, we are destroying ourselves and those around us. To do so would be irrational to our own continued existence and unjust to the existence of others.”
I believe the prevention of this ‘injustice to the existence of others’ is at the heart of environmentalism. More than anything else environmentalism strives to limit injustices perpetrated on fellow men.
He also points out, however, that environmentalists have perpetrated their own form of damaging irrationality. Without a doubt environmentalists are guilty of exaggeration, spectacle, and propaganda to get what they believe is correct. This is not an acceptable means of encouraging social change, regardless of the validity or falsehood of their conclusions. If the truths of your conclusions can not stand up on their own maybe the conclusions need further examination. Sometimes propaganda and exaggeration seem like the only way to grab the attention of an ambivalent public, but these methods undermine all credibility. The only moral means of public influence is dissemination of the truth, anything less only dooms your cause. The environmentalists may be learning this lesson the hard way, and at the expense of every person’s health and long term chances of survival.
T notes that the case of Global Warming is particularly tricky. No one is sure what will really happen, and the means of effectively abating the problem would be extremely drastic and expensive. If our survival does depend on these drastic measures there is no doubt that they are justified, but if the theory of Global Warming is incorrect we will have wasted countless resources on a hunch.
In the past I have decided my position on this issue by trusting the judgment of scientists and educators who I respect. In many ways I am still convinced of the danger and still I believe we must now start making changes to abate some of the effects of Global Warming. But this almost emotional conviction is not enough if I plan on pushing Global Warming as a political issue. Before I encourage legal measures to limit Carbon emissions I must be absolutely convinced by the science behind these assertions. In fact, before ANY person makes a decision to support or reject legal measures associated with this issue I believe it is their responsibility to seek out scientific support for why they feel one way or another.
The first step in this process is to examine the actual scientific research that is availabe to the public and to gather as much compelling evidence as possible. One logical first source for this inquiry is Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change by Frances Drake. Michael Crichton, an avowed skeptic, recommends this text in his novel State of Fear. He calls Drake’s book a “well-written overview for college students (that) can be read by any interested reader.” Reading Drake’s book will be my first step in solidifying my position, and I think any other concerned person should begin a similar route of inquiry.
I hope T, and the many people like him, are actively seeking out information about the Global Warming issue, and I hope they will not let the misrepresentations of environmentalists detract from the serious possibility that our current behavior may be responsible for a problem that would be devastating for our children.
In one section of his comments T pointed out that both objectivists and environmentalists demonstrate irrational thinking when it comes to management the natural world.
In an especially good statement he sums up the inherent flaw of blindly rejecting the entire environmental movement: “…if the world is truly deteriorating and we are at fault, we are destroying ourselves and those around us. To do so would be irrational to our own continued existence and unjust to the existence of others.”
I believe the prevention of this ‘injustice to the existence of others’ is at the heart of environmentalism. More than anything else environmentalism strives to limit injustices perpetrated on fellow men.
He also points out, however, that environmentalists have perpetrated their own form of damaging irrationality. Without a doubt environmentalists are guilty of exaggeration, spectacle, and propaganda to get what they believe is correct. This is not an acceptable means of encouraging social change, regardless of the validity or falsehood of their conclusions. If the truths of your conclusions can not stand up on their own maybe the conclusions need further examination. Sometimes propaganda and exaggeration seem like the only way to grab the attention of an ambivalent public, but these methods undermine all credibility. The only moral means of public influence is dissemination of the truth, anything less only dooms your cause. The environmentalists may be learning this lesson the hard way, and at the expense of every person’s health and long term chances of survival.
T notes that the case of Global Warming is particularly tricky. No one is sure what will really happen, and the means of effectively abating the problem would be extremely drastic and expensive. If our survival does depend on these drastic measures there is no doubt that they are justified, but if the theory of Global Warming is incorrect we will have wasted countless resources on a hunch.
In the past I have decided my position on this issue by trusting the judgment of scientists and educators who I respect. In many ways I am still convinced of the danger and still I believe we must now start making changes to abate some of the effects of Global Warming. But this almost emotional conviction is not enough if I plan on pushing Global Warming as a political issue. Before I encourage legal measures to limit Carbon emissions I must be absolutely convinced by the science behind these assertions. In fact, before ANY person makes a decision to support or reject legal measures associated with this issue I believe it is their responsibility to seek out scientific support for why they feel one way or another.
The first step in this process is to examine the actual scientific research that is availabe to the public and to gather as much compelling evidence as possible. One logical first source for this inquiry is Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change by Frances Drake. Michael Crichton, an avowed skeptic, recommends this text in his novel State of Fear. He calls Drake’s book a “well-written overview for college students (that) can be read by any interested reader.” Reading Drake’s book will be my first step in solidifying my position, and I think any other concerned person should begin a similar route of inquiry.
I hope T, and the many people like him, are actively seeking out information about the Global Warming issue, and I hope they will not let the misrepresentations of environmentalists detract from the serious possibility that our current behavior may be responsible for a problem that would be devastating for our children.
posted by -E at 8:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home