[extropy-chat] Climate skepticism patterns

[Martin Striz]

On 6/9/06, Anders Sandberg <asa at nada.kth.se> wrote:

> Similarly the intervovenness argument is also a deeply conservative
> argument. You can use it to defend monarchy and capitalism as it suits
> you. After all, who are we to meddle with the great spontaneous orders?

Nature is red in tooth and claw.  Some have argued that our morality
should reflect that (Cf. Herbert Spencer).  Even if they were wrong,
that doesn't make it less true of nature.  Even if an interwovenness
argument was used to defend indefensible things, it is still a fact of
ecosystems.  Comparing it to bogus arguments doesn't make it less
true.

> Fortunately ecology is not just intervoven but robust and inventive.
> Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted the other climate change periods.

Granted.  I certainly don't think that ecosystems won't bounce back.
But it takes a long time. We have an uncanny ability to destroy them
faster than they proliferate.

We may even be able to create species de novo someday.  However, some
vague prospect beyond the horizon shouldn't be a license to act
irresponsibly.  Should I not save any money for retirement because
there's a small chance that the Singularity, postbiology, or whatever
will arrive before then?  That would be stupid.

> I
> think a bit of intelligence, some knowledge and plenty of monitoring can
> be used to fix things. Maybe not back to what they were, but we will never
> be able to agree on when it was "right" anyway

I think that at this point the trajectory needs to be changed.

Martin