WMN: t3_29c3ml_t1_cincj84--TIO3

[TITLE]

CMV: I don't find anthropogenic global warming an interesting issue.

[Abstract_Atheist]

I have never really been interested in the whole man-made global warming issue. I have strong positions on certain *philosophical* questions - for example, I am confident that God does not exist and that morality is as objective as physics. However, empirical questions like global warming are less interesting to me because they depend so much on analysis of details. (By "empirical questions" I mean questions that depend more strongly on experimental evidence than on reflection on everyday experience or our knowledge of history.) There is an exception to my impatience with empirical issues, which is the debate over the theory of evolution. I like studying the evidence for the theory of evolution, although I am very far from a biologist, because it is a paradigmatic example of settled science that almost all relevant scientists accept. I have read things that suggest that most scientists also think that global warming is happening and is caused by man, but I am not certain that that is actually the consensus. If it's relevant, my political views are influenced by libertarianism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. If I became convinced that global warming was happening due to human intervention in the environment, I would not be in favor of regulating the economy to lessen greenhouse gas emissions, because my understanding is that the major effects of global warming would happen after we are all dead anyway. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[ianw19]

But you should be extremely concerned about the disasterous consequences of overreacting to global warming. You should be extremely interested to know, for instance, if there is a sound reason for rich countries to pressure developing countries to slow their development - effectively condemning hundreds of millions of people to live poor and die young only to diminish the rate at which the concentration of CO2 increases in the atmosphere. In other words, the stakes in the scientific debate over *how severe* the effects of CO2 emissions will be (which, unlike the issue of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere, is not even close to being settled science) are almost unfathomably high. Errors in both directions - overestimation and underestimation - could result hundreds of millions of needless deaths. The sheer magnitude of the stakes is what motivated me to do my best to dig into the empirical evidence, and I hope you have the same experience.

[Abstract_Atheist]

This is a very impressive argument, especially the part where you mentioned the fact that we might have to ask poorer countries to slow their development. ∆

[ianw19]

Embolded by the delta (which I apprecciate very much, by the way) let me address this issue of philosphy a bit more directly. Here's one very interesting philosophical issue that comes up, at least in my mind, when thinking about global warming: Is causing a given amount of harm worse than preventing the same amount of betterment? The case in favor of limiting fossil fuel consumption to curb global warming often emphasizes the *harm* that's *caused* by anthropogenic global warming. By consuming fossil fuels, we may cause more severe hurricanes that damage cities' infrastructure, for instance. The case against such action (or, at least, the best, most thoughtful case against it) emphasizes the *betterment* that's *prevented* by limiting fossil fuel use. By enforcing such limits, we may prevent improvements to cities' infrastructure. Philsophers have analyzed this kind of comparison. Sam Harris, in *The Moral Landscape* uses the following thought experiment: (A) A doctor is treating a child who is a musical prodigy, but makes a negligent error that causes the child to lose his musical talent; (B) A doctor is treating a child with no musical talent and makes an equally negligent error that causes the child to remain without musical talent eventhough he would have become a musical prodigy if only the doctor had treated him responsibly. While (A) seems to pull at our heartstrings more than (B), the neglegence in both (A) and (B) have the same results: a child ends up lacking musical talent instead of being a prodigy. Psychologists have characterized this as "loss aversion:" Losses feel worse than gains feel good, and this has been demonstrated empirically through consumers' reaction to changes in prices: We react to price increases (by buying less) more strongly than we react to price decreases (by buying more), since the former represents a loss of money, while the latter represents a gain. Returning to global warming, my fear is that people have an unjustifiable (from a utiliatarian perspective) feeling that the harm caused by anthropogenic global warming is somehow more important than the betterment that would be prevented by efforts to curb it, and that this is seriously interfering with their ability to do rational cost-benefit analyses of various energy & environment policies. Philosophically interested yet?

[join_or_die]

Have you heard of Alex Epstein from the center for industrial progress? He seems to have the same view as you. Interesting argument, thanks for sharing.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ianw19. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ianw19)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[syd_malicious]

I don't think the point of the debate is that it is interesting. The point is that it exists and we need to decide whether or not and how to address it. It's philosophical value is irrelevant to the discussion that is currently happening. In other words, I don't understand what your point is. Are you saying we shouldn't address it because you don't think it's worthy of addressing? Or are you saying that you will not participate in addressing it because you don't think its worthy of your time? If the former, you are (empirically) wrong because the consequences will be (empirically) very significant. If the latter, then I would just recommend stepping aside for people who do care to do what we can to solve it.

[Clawdragons]

Why is it that Ayn Rand's followers think it's okay to screw over anyone they want, for entirely selfish reasons, so long as they don't get caught? Oh, right. That's basically her entire message. The fact of the matter is that man-made global warming is the overwhelming consensus of scientists. It has many impacts, both in the modern day and for our future. Global warming, for example, is a systemic cause of hurricanes and other such tropical storms. It has the overall trend of causing more high powered and destructive hurricanes. It has major effects on the survival of species - and can change environments such that mass extinctions result. It can cause the sea level to rise, reducing habitable land and flooding many areas. Yes, it is true, you may die soon enough to avoid many of these problems yourself. Future generations, certainly, will experience them. It is not enough for you that you are happy to stand on the shoulders of those who came before you, of those who worked so that future generations (read: you) could live comfortable lives? It is not enough to merely leech off of the society that has enabled you to live such a life? Not enough to leech off of the planet? No, what you are proposing is pushing future generations off of this cliff of achievement, watching them plummet and die at the bottom, and feeling satisfied with yourself because you are "dead anyway". Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. Maybe you think that the effects of global warming will only really come into play after ALL humans are dead. Which - I don't even know how you think you'd know when that'd be, but it's irrelevant, because we are not the only species on the planet. So, yeah, that interpretation doesn't do you any favors either. So, all things said and done... You may be satisfied with being entirely selfish. With knowing your actions had horrible effects for other people, as long as you weren't yourself affected. But I'm not. I may not believe in objective morality, but my subjective morals are far superior to yours anyway.

[greenceltic]

It's a matter of compassion and a desire for the human race to prosper in the future. If you don't feel empathy for future generations or care about the continuance of humanity after your death, then I guess you have no reason to pay attention to global warming. But...that's a very alien way of thinking. Most people just aren't wired that way. Even the staunchest conservatives don't dismiss the future as unimportant. They oppose environmental regulation because they're skeptical of the science and fear that political action would just lead to oppressive and harmful regulations. Most people feel empathy and want the human race to continue. I guess this would just be an instance of majority rule. The majority of us care about the future and want to protect it. If you don't, then you are part an extremely small minority that will be ignored by most other people.

[WienerGuy]

"You may not think it matters now, but what if you were wrong?" - Greg Graffin

[Abstract_Atheist]

Do you have evidence that I'm wrong?

[WienerGuy]

That's the point. What IF you are?

[Clawdragons]

I propose that there is a blind gibbering idiot diety. He becomes enraged at the color blue. If you wear blue, he marks it down in his giant book of people he hates. When you die, he's going to torture you for a billion years for every time you wore the color blue. Are you going to stop wearing blue? No? You say you don't believe in this blind gibbering idiot god I've proposed? But what if you're wrong!? Edit: Tone

[WienerGuy]

Ehhh that's a bit different since there is no evidence to support the blue-hating God. If almost every scientist in the world said "shit, this blue-hater is the real deal", then yea I wouldn't wear blue.

[Clawdragons]

No, it's the exact same thing, because there has to be evidence. When Abstract_Atheist asked if you have any evidence, you didn't provide any - you simply repeated "what if you're wrong". The crux of the issue is not what happens when you are wrong, but whether or not there is evidence to suggest that you are wrong. I agree with you that climate change is an important issue with dire ramifications, but it is not because of those ramifications that it is accepted, or sincerely considered. It is because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence. It all boils down to evidence.

[WienerGuy]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Clawdragons]

For the record, I agree with you 100% that climate change is happening, that it is anthropogenic, and that something needs to be done about it, because it will have major effects on the world, humans, and animals. What I don't agree with was the way you were arguing for it earlier. "What if you're wrong" is a terrible argument. You have the evidence. "What if you're wrong" is little better than "because I said so". Again, I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion the evidence leads one to about climate change. I am disagreeing with the way you argued for it.

[WienerGuy]

Maybe I should have been more clear. The quote is referring to the [Kyoto Protocol](http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php). The idea is: all right, we might be wrong about long-term repercussions, but why not do what we can now to safeguard ourselves? I believe the US said "naahhh we aren't going to comply", which sucks.

[Clawdragons]

That's a much better way of phrasing it, but, as a whole, there's no reason to take it seriously without the evidence, and so it's best, in my mind, to start with the evidence, and go from there to what the repercussions are. To put it another way, "This is happening, and could be very bad", is more compelling than "If this happened, it could be very bad". The first has the element of knowledge which solidifies the threat, while the second is lacking that element entirely.

[WienerGuy]

I personally do not. NASA, on the other hand, appears to. [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

[yakushi12345]

Unless I'm missing it, you seem to just be conflating some combination of interesting/philosophically interesting/politically important I don't think "There is a mountain lion trying to kill me" is a very philosophically interesting dilemma....that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it.

[FliedenRailway]

Completely off topic, so I hope the voters are kind, but: [STA-CITE]> I am confident that God does not exist and that morality is as objective as physics [END-CITE]Can you explain this a bit further? Where and how do you get moral facts from? What *oughts* should people live by? How are your morality/ethics informed and carried out? How can you be sure that your view on this is the *right* view?

[Abstract_Atheist]

A value is something someone acts to gain or keep. The concept of value presupposes an alternative, a goal and a choice in the face of the alternative to achieve the goal. If I value a trip to the ice cream shop, I have the alternative of going to the ice cream shop or not going to the ice cream shop and the goal of eating ice cream, and have chosen in light of that alternative and goal to go to the ice cream shop. The fundamental alternative, which makes sense of all of the others, is the alternative of life and death. Every living being has a means of survival. Plants survive by means of their unconscious automatic functions. Animals are conscious but survive by means of instincts which tell them automatically what to do. Humans, however, have to survive by rationally processing the information given to them. Humans, alone among all living things, can choose whether or not to turn on their means of survival, reason. This is why humans can be assessed morally while animals and plants cannot. Animals and plants can have things that are valuable to them from the perspective of survival, but they cannot have moral values, because they are not rational. To survive, a human being has to use his reason to come up with a set of abstract moral principles that will tell him how to act. This is the objective foundation for morality. A moral code can be assessed by reference to its impact on the life of the agent who obeys it. Since life can be defined objectively by the science of biology, morality is as objective as physics or any other science. A morality based on life requires us to exhibit certain virtues: rationality, productivity, and pride. Rationality means using your mind to choose goals that are objectively good for you and the best means to them. Productivity means working to create the material values required for your life. Pride means being morally ambitious, i.e., constantly working to improve yourself morally. These three virtues form a cycle: rationality chooses goals, productivity achieves them, and pride inspires us to set yet higher goals. This is a sketch of an argument that was worked out in much more detail by Ayn Rand in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," which I will link to below. http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/the-objectivist-ethics.html

[FliedenRailway]

I'd not really delved into Rand's objectivism before. But I'll try and give a reply a go. I may be be arguing against objectivism via your words here, but ah well. [STA-CITE]> Humans, however, have to survive by rationally processing the information given to them. [END-CITE]What do you mean by "rationally" processing information? Other animals, arguably, rationally process information as well. They can reason towards end-goals related to their survival for example (limited) use of tools and techniques for catching food or pray. Again, what do you mean by "rational"? [STA-CITE]> To survive, a human being has to use his reason to come up with a set of abstract moral principles that will tell him how to act. [END-CITE]Certainly not. I see no such requirement to *survive*. It seems you're implying that if one does not come up with a "abstract moral principles" then they cannot survive (e.g. will die). Do you mean a human will be subjectively *happier* or *better* if he comes up with a set of "abstract moral principles?" If so, why and how? [STA-CITE]> A moral code can be assessed by reference to its impact on the life of the agent who obeys it. [END-CITE]Sure, it *could*. But I don't see the requirement that it needs to be. Whatever floats your boat. [STA-CITE]> Since life can be defined objectively by the science of biology, morality is as objective as physics or any other science. [END-CITE]I don't see your connection with "life" and "morality" here. Unless you mean to say morality is the same as life defined objectively by biology. In which case that morality would describe the fact of life (or *merely existing*) and say nothing about good & bad, right & wrong. [STA-CITE]> A morality based on life requires us to exhibit certain virtues: rationality, productivity, and pride. [END-CITE]I'm not sure what you mean by "morality based on life" but where does this requirement to exhibit come from?

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> What do you mean by "rationally" processing information? Other animals, arguably, rationally process information as well. They can reason towards end-goals related to their survival for example (limited) use of tools and techniques for catching food or pray. Again, what do you mean by "rational"? [END-CITE]Other animals may exhibit some primitive form of rationality, but as far as we know only humans can engage in explicit reasoning like we see in the sciences. Human beings are rational to a much greater extent than any other animal species. [STA-CITE]> Certainly not. I see no such requirement to survive. It seems you're implying that if one does not come up with a "abstract moral principles" then they cannot survive (e.g. will die). Do you mean a human will be subjectively happier or better if he comes up with a set of "abstract moral principles?" If so, why and how? [END-CITE]A person who did not have a set of abstract moral principles would have much more trouble surviving than a person who did, because they would have no guidance for dealing with most situations. For example, they would not have any way of deciding whether or not to go to their job in the morning. Fortunately, forming abstract moral principles, at least on a subconscious level, is almost automatic for us, especially in a society with a rich cultural history like ours. [STA-CITE]> I don't see your connection with "life" and "morality" here. Unless you mean to say morality is the same as life defined objectively by biology. In which case that morality would describe the fact of life (or merely existing) and say nothing about good & bad, right & wrong. [END-CITE]Morality isn't the same as life, although life is the standard for morality. [STA-CITE]> I'm not sure what you mean by "morality based on life" but where does this requirement to exhibit come from? [END-CITE]Observation. Your odds of survival will be better if you are rational, productive, and ambitious.

[FliedenRailway]

[STA-CITE]> Other animals may exhibit some primitive form of rationality, but as far as we know only humans can engage in explicit reasoning like we see in the sciences. Human beings are rational to a much greater extent than any other animal species. [END-CITE]Ok, I'll grant that. But the original point you made was that humans *have* to survive by rationally processing information. I haven't seen an argument that shows that that's true. In fact I could see situations that humans survive (that is anything that preserves *mere existence*) without thinking or reasoning. [STA-CITE]> A person who did not have a set of abstract moral principles would have much more trouble surviving than a person who did, because they would have no guidance for dealing with most situations. For example, they would not have any way of deciding whether or not to go to their job in the morning. Fortunately, forming abstract moral principles, at least on a subconscious level, is almost automatic for us, especially in a society with a rich cultural history like ours. [END-CITE]Sure, perhaps *much more trouble* surviving but not impossible to survive. I'm still not seeing the requirement for requiring guidance for dealing with situations. Choices could be made on a whim, or using emotion or instinct or coin toss. Put another way why is being immoral (in sense of acting merely without a moral code) bad or wrong? [STA-CITE]> Morality isn't the same as life, although life is the standard for morality. [END-CITE]I didn't meant to say they were the same, my bad. But I don't see how it can be the standard. No arguments for it seem to follow for me. I find [this critique](http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm) the most compelling analysis (rebuttal) I've read of Objectivist ethics. Specifically the jump from rational beings somehow leads to "life is good" and "egoism is true" seems disjointed and forced. It seems predicated that the mere existence of life (or rationality) is given the absolute value of good *arbitrarily*. Why isn't life bad? Why does life have value at all? [STA-CITE]> Observation. Your odds of survival will be better if you are rational, productive, and ambitious. [END-CITE]Sure, I'll grant that your odds might be better. But back to the original point which is how morality is as objective as physics this just doesn't seem to follow. In your last reply you saying having a moral code is *better* for people surviving in a contemporary world. But you don't really say why Objectivism is the right code to have. And in the face of multiple codes to arbitrarily chose that's hardly as objective as physics. Essentially my assertion is that even if Ayn Rand's fundamental epistemology has merit her political and ethical/moral pronouncements seem arbitrary. I don't see how evaluating moral situations using Objectivist ethics is the right (or good) thing to do, therefore any other ethical system is just as applicable.

[ReluctantPirateGames]

I think it's best to take your title as the thesis of your view: that global warming, as an issue, is *not interesting*. Whether or not you believe it to be true, and however you feel about it's relation to the economy or whatever doesn't matter. The reason global warming, and in my mind, energy policy is *interesting* is because a failure to address it will render all other discussions obsolete. We won't have time for philosophy when the eastern seaboard is underwater. People won't have the patience to read Ayn Rand when finding food becomes a major concern for a larger and larger percentage of people. The Earth and it's mechanisms could give two shits about your Objectivism, and it's that "unstoppable force" component that makes it *interesting*. Again, you don't have to believe in it (although you should), but you might want to consider that a discussion about our collective survival might be kinda neat.

[redditeyes]

You should care about the issue because our future as a species depends on it. It is an existential threat - if not to us, certainly to our children and grandchildren. Don't you care about the survival of humanity, even after you are gone? It seems kind of important. [STA-CITE]> However, empirical questions like global warming are less interesting to me [END-CITE]Most scientists will tell you that science is extremely interesting and awesome. But they are a bit biased, because they have already done all the ground work to get to the point where they can enjoy science. The truth is that science is hard and for somebody with no experience it can be difficult to like it. There might be a lot of beauty and understanding in a complex equation in physics, but if you show it to the layman they will say "Ugh.. Not mathematics again.." The reason to do all this boring mathematics and tedious empirical research is that it gives us more accurate answers to our questions than other more interesting methods. Philosophers have been discussing the nature of the universe for thousands of years - and some of those discussions are extremely interesting and logical, and making sense, and explaining things.. It's fun reading and studying it. Yet... They were mostly wrong about almost everything. It is only now, with modern science (and all the boring maths coming with it) that we are able to start understanding some of those issues and get accurate answers. Where do men and the animals come from? Why are they the way they are? What are we made of? How and when was the Earth created? What are those things in the sky and why do they move? So many questions people have been wondering for thousands of years, now finally answered by science. If the price for that is to do some boring maths, so be it. The overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific work agrees that there is global warming and that it is caused by us, and that it will lead to problems. When there is such strong consensus, you need to accept that this is what science tells us. The best thing to do is to do some studying and understand the evidence yourself. That will require a lot of effort, especially if you don't find it interesting, but in the end you will have better understanding. If you don't want to do it, that's fine.. But then you have to accept what the people that have done it say.

[Abstract_Atheist]

[STA-CITE]> Philosophers have been discussing the nature of the universe for thousands of years - and some of those discussions are extremely interesting and logical, and making sense, and explaining things.. It's fun reading and studying it. Yet... They were mostly wrong about almost everything. It is only now, with modern science (and all the boring maths coming with it) that we are able to start understanding some of those issues and get accurate answers. [END-CITE]Which philosophical questions has science provided better answers to? I can't think of any philosophical question that science has made a significant contribution to solving (and when someone claims that it does make a contribution, it can pretty much always be reinterpreted by the other side). Some philosophers involved themselves in pre-scientific speculation, but that does not mean that science has much of value to say to philosophy proper. [STA-CITE]> If you don't want to do it, that's fine.. But then you have to accept what the people that have done it say. [END-CITE]No, I don't. There is no reason why I have to accept what an authority says before studying the evidence myself, barring some sort of need to make a quick decision, which I do not face here.

[omgpieftw]

That's a subjective question... There is no 'correct' answer...

[Clawdragons]

The arguably most famous philosophical questions of all time: Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going? Science has provided some pretty great explanations for that middle one, if nothing else.

[sailorbrendan]

[STA-CITE]> Which philosophical questions has science provided better answers to? [END-CITE]Lingustics, anthropology, psychology and neurobiology have been delving into the roots of the human condition for a while. Philosophy is the study of thought. Studying the physical mechanisms for thought has given us a lot of really interesting insights to the human condition.

[irondeepbicycle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. Is that the entirety of your view? You just don't think the consensus is as absolute as evolution?

[Abstract_Atheist]

No, the issue also doesn't seem to have much philosophical importance.

[omgpieftw]

It doesn't have to have philosophical importance.... But it does in the sense that different schools of thought will have different ideas of what the best way to handle the worst case scenario damage to society would be. So in the sense of the means of damage mitigation there is some philosophical relevance.

[waterbott]

Sure it does. It raises the question about where we draw the line in ethics. Should we apply ethics to future generations, or should we apply ethics only to people alive today? Or maybe people in our country? Or just people that I care about? How about just myself? Or maybe we should adopt a holistic worldview and apply ethics to everything. The philosophical importance of this issue is that no one agrees to whom we should apply ethics.