[extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns

[spike]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-
> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
> Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:45 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns
> 
> 
> A fun way to annoy both climate sceptics and greenhousers alike is to
> point out the need for climate regulation...

Anders this post is brilliant, thanks.

> 
> The deep issues that make people dislike climate control is IMHO the
> natural order assumption (nature is good whatever it does, human action is
> neutral or suspect)...
> --
> Anders Sandberg,
> Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
> Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

I have been pointing out this logical tension for years, in many contexts
including life extension.  If someone argues that natural is good but human
action is suspect, then I press by asking: are humans natural?  If the
answer is no, then I ask if the person is a creationist.  Few nature lovers
want to get in bed with that crowd.  If they are creationists, the first
page of their holy scriptures urge them to subdue and dominate nature, be
fruitful and multiply, etc.  On the other hand, if humans are natural, then
would we need to define everything that humans do as natural.  

Environmental modification and economy lead to wildly complex questions.
Like the beaver, human technology helps some species and harms others.  How
do we judge if the overall effect is good or bad?

Regarding teraforming the earth, assume we discovered a technology to warm
the poles while lowering the temperature of the equator.  Would we do it?
If we were to melt the northern icecap, Sweden would be poised to become a
manufacturing powerhouse, for it would become the nearest highly
industrialized nation to the enormous markets of Western Canada, California
and Mexico.

Did any of you see the recent movie March of the Penguins?  Do rent that.  I
thought it excellent, a refreshing change from the usual Hollyweird
nonsense.  If we melted the poles it would be the end of the road for those
guys, which would be so sad.  But if we could warm the poles enough to melt
the snow, could we not move the world's low lying island communities to that
vast empty continent?  Could we not move the teeming hordes of Bangladesh to
the northern shores of Canada, Alaska and Siberia?

spike