Questioner
Senior Member
- Nov 26, 2019
- 1,593
- 84
- 50
- Banned
- #1
Assuming that most of the infantile proposals actually had a meaningful effect on ending man-made global warming, to begin with, other than in pure speculation and childishness, such as "having fewer children", when I'd venture, if anything, innovation, such as corporations investing reliable alternative energy will ultimately be what alleviates these concerns.
The arguments that people "should" do something to stop it, whatever the extent of it actually is to begin with are just religious or philosophical arguments, not scientific, akin to nature worship, which has been an aspect of folk religion sense the ancient times.
Whether they hark from the Secular Humanist philosophy, or some strain of Utilitarian thought, dating back ironically to the 1800s, before any of the modern information about climate change originated, showing that on some level this was just a simple, faith based axiom before scientific information was ever retroactively used to further affirm it, and other idyllic notions such as "change" or "progress" often associated with it ambiguously.
While irrational fear of death may be of emotional appeal to the superstitious and less intelligent global warming alarmists, assuming we question these philosophical axioms, then I'm tempted to argue that "fear" of death via man-made global warming, and that the planet must be "appeased" for this reason, is not a particularly motivating cause to begin with.
In away, this is more akin to cowardly submission to an authoritarian god, who one believes they must make sacrifices to in order to avert death or some type of punishment in the future, seeming to be of the opposite strain of many Enlightenment ideologies or philosophies to begin with.
If one doesn't believe, for example, that an atheist should have to fear being branded a heretic and put on the rack by the Medieval Church, or an Islamist regime, then why would blindly submitting to irrational fear of death by the planet be any less cowardly and regressive, rather than progressive?
For that matter, if arguments against alleged "overpopulation" are allegedly use as a solution (or perhaps a placebo posing as a solution), then any deaths which naturally occur via man-made global warming would potentially just be the planet's means of naturally reducing human population in response, not requiring any meddlesome public polices to begin with, and a good thing in the long run, other than those who selfishly and childishly fear their own demise, but not that of others.
In the long run, it doesn't matter - the opinions of GW alarmists should be ignored by rational people to begin with, as their level of so-called "debate" on the subject is just mankind's childish and superstitious fear of death in general, particularily from a catastrophe.
Whether the "tribulation", or alien invasion In "War of the Worlds" - mankind has been shown to superstitiously and irrationally fear death or catastrophe as a whole, superstitious alarmism being no exception, and not worthy of the discussion by serious individuals to begin with, most as their rhetoric always ends up being a case of some anti-scientific idiots attacking what science and its research actually are with simplistic ad populum or argument from authority fallacies, invoking and abusing terms like "consensus", "skeptic", or "outlier", all the while being too dumb or outright ideologically dishonest to even know what those terms mean, in practice, which as far as actual science and research goes? Not much..
In stead, we should be holding legitimate, entrepreneurially minded discussions on the subject, such as that if we agree that man-made global warming is potentially a problem, how it could be alleviated creatively, preferably without childish, silly and noneffective public policy proposals, as opposed to human creativity and ingenuity, such as the development of alternative forms of industry, which even the "oil company's" who are so often mentioned in Alarmist conspiracy theories would potentially have much financial and technological incentive to invest in.
The arguments that people "should" do something to stop it, whatever the extent of it actually is to begin with are just religious or philosophical arguments, not scientific, akin to nature worship, which has been an aspect of folk religion sense the ancient times.
Whether they hark from the Secular Humanist philosophy, or some strain of Utilitarian thought, dating back ironically to the 1800s, before any of the modern information about climate change originated, showing that on some level this was just a simple, faith based axiom before scientific information was ever retroactively used to further affirm it, and other idyllic notions such as "change" or "progress" often associated with it ambiguously.
While irrational fear of death may be of emotional appeal to the superstitious and less intelligent global warming alarmists, assuming we question these philosophical axioms, then I'm tempted to argue that "fear" of death via man-made global warming, and that the planet must be "appeased" for this reason, is not a particularly motivating cause to begin with.
In away, this is more akin to cowardly submission to an authoritarian god, who one believes they must make sacrifices to in order to avert death or some type of punishment in the future, seeming to be of the opposite strain of many Enlightenment ideologies or philosophies to begin with.
If one doesn't believe, for example, that an atheist should have to fear being branded a heretic and put on the rack by the Medieval Church, or an Islamist regime, then why would blindly submitting to irrational fear of death by the planet be any less cowardly and regressive, rather than progressive?
For that matter, if arguments against alleged "overpopulation" are allegedly use as a solution (or perhaps a placebo posing as a solution), then any deaths which naturally occur via man-made global warming would potentially just be the planet's means of naturally reducing human population in response, not requiring any meddlesome public polices to begin with, and a good thing in the long run, other than those who selfishly and childishly fear their own demise, but not that of others.
In the long run, it doesn't matter - the opinions of GW alarmists should be ignored by rational people to begin with, as their level of so-called "debate" on the subject is just mankind's childish and superstitious fear of death in general, particularily from a catastrophe.
Whether the "tribulation", or alien invasion In "War of the Worlds" - mankind has been shown to superstitiously and irrationally fear death or catastrophe as a whole, superstitious alarmism being no exception, and not worthy of the discussion by serious individuals to begin with, most as their rhetoric always ends up being a case of some anti-scientific idiots attacking what science and its research actually are with simplistic ad populum or argument from authority fallacies, invoking and abusing terms like "consensus", "skeptic", or "outlier", all the while being too dumb or outright ideologically dishonest to even know what those terms mean, in practice, which as far as actual science and research goes? Not much..
In stead, we should be holding legitimate, entrepreneurially minded discussions on the subject, such as that if we agree that man-made global warming is potentially a problem, how it could be alleviated creatively, preferably without childish, silly and noneffective public policy proposals, as opposed to human creativity and ingenuity, such as the development of alternative forms of industry, which even the "oil company's" who are so often mentioned in Alarmist conspiracy theories would potentially have much financial and technological incentive to invest in.
