I'm not a prepper...but my son will be...

[feralpig]

Am I ethically wrong to put diesel in my truck, or eat GM products. What about inorganic spuds? Ever seen the state the soil is in after growing them?
Should I get cheap goods from China. Drive round on bald tyres, to save the oil that new ones would take? Think how much oil could be saved if every one did that.

I'll work within the systems that are put in place.
Governments put those systems in place. They can change them. I can't.

I can look out my window, and see beautiful countryside, for 20 miles, in three directions.
500 years ago, everything I can see, below the tree line, was dense forest. Should I be concerned about that?
The horse has bolted a long time ago. We are trying to close the gate on many generations of it's offspring.
Not my problem, but it is my tax.

 

[Blaidd]

I'm not attacking your choices, we must all be true to ourselves, there are sometimes no black and white answers, compromises sometimes have to be made (what is the greater evil, for example) and if one doesn't believe something is ethically wrong then carry on, everyone has to make their own decision about everything. But to believe something is wrong and do nothing, even if you cannot solve the problem entirely, I would class as immoral.

 

[feralpig]

Possibly immoral, but then I would say, better use one's resources towards a better goal.

 

[Blaidd]

And I think I will. Interesting discussion. Thank you.

 

[santaman2000]

......I'll work within the systems that are put in place.
Governments put those systems in place. They can change them. I can't.....

Partly true. But governments (specifically democratic governments) put systems in place (or not) as demanded by the voters. Hence my earlier comment that, yes, it does matter whether people believe climate change is real or not; specifically, what the VOTER believes matters. If the voters don't believe it; no changes will be demanded.

 

[feralpig]

If man is having a detrimental effect on the global environment, then the various governments shouldn't need to ask the voters about anything. If it really is a serious as some scientists make out, then it should be out of the hands of anyones opinion.
Governments don't ask voters if they would kindly move a little distance away, because a nuclear power plant is about to explode. (Usually, they say nothing, but you get my point.........)

Always nice to talk things out on a sunny weekend evening.

 

[Corso]

Partly true. But governments (specifically democratic governments) put systems in place (or not) as demanded by the voters.

since when?

 

[santaman2000]

If man is having a detrimental effect on the global environment, then the various governments shouldn't need to ask the voters about anything. If it really is a serious as some scientists make out, then it should be out of the hands of anyones opinion.
Governments don't ask voters if they would kindly move a little distance away, because a nuclear power plant is about to explode.....

Actually, over here fewer than half the states allow for "mandatory" evacuations.

But in any case, that's hardly the same thing as changing socio-economic standards. Or taxes to support such changes. Government makes changes that cost voters money = new representatives after the next election repealing those changes. It ain't rocket science.

 

[Adze]

Actually, over here fewer than half the states allow for "mandatory" evacuations.

But in any case, that's hardly the same thing as changing socio-economic standards. Or taxes to support such changes. Government makes changes that cost voters money = new representatives after the next election repealing those changes. It ain't rocket science.

Its also not the way it happens in the UK. We've had, effectively, the same government in the UK since about 1979... the faces change, the policies stay more or less the same with each successive government blaming the previous incumbent and the media dancing to their own tune to nobody's interest but their own. Plus ça change...

Whoops! Politics... best I say something bushcrafty... honey stove, titanium mug, spork, silnylon tarp, CREE led headlamp. Phew... crisis averted!

 

[whats wrong with you all]

Its also not the way it happens in the UK. We've had, effectively, the same government in the UK since about 1979... the faces change, the policies stay more or less the same with each successive government blaming the previous incumbent and the media dancing to their own tune to nobody's interest but their own. Plus ça change...

Whoops! Politics... best I say something bushcrafty... honey stove, titanium mug, spork, silnylon tarp, CREE led headlamp. Phew... crisis averted!

Don't mention sporks! That's even worse

 

[santaman2000]

Its also not the way it happens in the UK. We've had, effectively, the same government in the UK since about 1979... the faces change, the policies stay more or less the same with each successive government blaming the previous incumbent and the media dancing to their own tune to nobody's interest but their own. Plus ça change...

Perhaps so. But this particular line of conversation in the thread began from a posted video indicating that it didn't matter whether Americans believed in climate change or not. That IS the way it happens over here (not always for the better, but it is what it is) so it definitely DOES matter what those voters think or believe if you want to effect any change through the US government. And it does matter what the largest economy does if you want any real impact on a global level. In a decade or so, when China becomes the largest economy, maybe it will be different.

 

[demographic]

Nah, no-one really, apart from the scientific community who have studied it more than the rest of us, and those who are in the habitat of believing the most knowledgeable people on a given subject... in this case the scientists

Pretty much what Harvestman said^

 

[brambles]

But this particular line of conversation in the thread began from a posted video indicating that it didn't matter whether Americans believed in climate change or not. .

You miss the point. The video, yes from an American TV show, is not referring to ONLY Americans, but to every one because it speaks a universal truth.

"You don't need people's opinions on a fact"

It does not matter if people are sceptical or outright disbelieve that fact, it will not stop it happening. No matter the amount of ridiculous, ill informed opinion polls, that fact will still exist. You don't get a vote on science, it votes on you and if you are found wanting then it moves on to the next step in the evolutionary ladder.

 

[Blaidd]

I agree with your thoughts on science. One of the problems with science, however, is that the results of one study may stand for a number of years and then be disproved. I read only yesterday that on studying red wine drinking in the Chianti region, previously reported health benefits have been disproved. (The line I loved was the note that during the study over many years of people over 65, that a third had died. I was waiting for a headline "Old people die of age") Science is sure of the " basics", but as more and more complex things get studied so the answers become more complex, hence Joe Soap loses faith in science.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

I agree with your thoughts on science. One of the problems with science, however, is that the results of one study may stand for a number of years and then be disproved. I read only yesterday that on studying red wine drinking in the Chianti region, previously reported health benefits have been disproved. (The line I loved was the note that during the study over many years of people over 65, that a third had died. I was waiting for a headline "Old people die of age") Science is sure of the " basics", but as more and more complex things get studied so the answers become more complex, hence Joe Soap loses faith in science.

Not quite.

There is this major issue in society with regard to being wrong. Changing our mind is in many cases treated as being wrong.

This leads to a major misunderstanding about the way science works. For years the pre-eminent theory was that the universe revolved round the earth. Then Galileo Galilie comes along with his new theory and evidence to back it up. Wow does that not go down well.

Think about any time you misunderstood something, then when meeting with your friends in the pub, you find out the correct answer. Boom, 2 hours of **** taking, and if you are unlucky, reminded of it at every inopportune moment.

Yes science changes it's mind, that is because science is adult enough to stand up and say "I was wrong, I believe the new answer to be ..." Science is not a holy text, it is not set in stone on one date never to change. It is mutable. That is it's strength.

For more on this I hartily recommend Kathryn Shutz's TED talk on the being wrong, as well has her book Being wrong: Adventures in the Margin of error

Note that in my opening paragraph I mention the issue is with society being wrong about being wrong. To understand this, dig out the news paper articles any time the government has made a U turn on something, we treat it with ridicule, and mocking. When in fact to stand up and say "I am wrong" is one of the most courageous things that someone can do, and the mark of a good person that can admit their error and learn from it.

Thanks

Julia

 

[redneck]

And will scientists do just that when they find out climate change is a natural event and not man made??

 

[Quixoticgeek]

And will scientists do just that when they find out climate change is a natural event and not man made??

Yes, provide conclusive evidence that stands up to the scientific method, then scientists should happily admit they were wrong.

I am more than happy for to be wrong. I am more worried I might be right.

Julia

 

[Blaidd]

Not quite.

There is this major issue in society with regard to being wrong. Changing our mind is in many cases treated as being wrong.

(Rest of post deleted to save space)

Thanks

Julia

Yes, I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact... I didn't! I agree with you entirely.