Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject
on
The Global Warming Heretic
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Global warming is politically difficult to sell to people when they are experiencing record cold.
That's because people tend to take 'global warming' as literally meaning that 'everywhere gets hotter'. Of course, some places get warmer and some get cooler but the average global temperature increases and the planet experiences more erratic and extreme climactic behavior as a consequence. 'Climate change' is a more useful term.
Congratulations. By dint of a lot of brainpower and work on your own, you've managed to reproduce a conversation that philosophers have been having for over a hundred years, anyway. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism
Thanks for the link - I guess I should try to read more philosophy. By the way, you might like to work on not sounding like a pompous twat the next time you post.
A couple of years ago, I tried to come up with a list of invariants of human behaviour. I managed to think of just one:
All human beings will always act with the intention of producing a benefit for themselves.
This invariably causes a ruckus whenever I mention it. Nobody wants to accept that everybody (including themselves) acts this way all the time, but as yet I haven't found too many exceptions.
Some people think this statement is obvious, but it isn't (how about altruistic behaviour, coercion, etc). Others think it is just plain cynical and nasty. Here are a few of the more obvious arguments against the law (with my counter-arguments) and some clarifying thoughts:
1. The law does not preclude acts of altruism. For example, a person donating blood is obviously not deriving any benefit from losing blood, but they do benefit from feeling a pleasing sense of satisfaction and well being after making the donation. They would not make the donation If they did not derive this pleasure from their act, since there would be no benefit to them in doing so. The same argument applies to all other acts of altruism : any benefit experienced by other people as a result of these acts is essentially a 'side effect' of the act. The act itself will always benefit the person doing it in some way.
2. The law does not state that people will act in a way as to produce the maximum benefit. For example, smokers are acting in a way which clearly does not produce a long term benefit (it kills them), but there is a short term benefit to be had from the 'high' produced by the chemicals in the tobacco and the satisfying of the craving caused by their addiction. The law makes no claims about the rationality of human behaviour.
3. People acting under duress still obey the law. For example, a person who is forced at gunpoint to do something which is ostensibly not in their favour is still acting for their own benefit, since they hope to avoid being shot by complying with the gunman's demands.
4. The law does not state that a benefit will necessarily result from a person's actions, only that the intent will be to produce a benefit. For example, a driver braking suddenly to avoid an accident will not necessarily do so, but the intent to produce this benefit is clearly present.
5. Persons who are generally judged as being mentally incompetent still obey the law. For example, someone who believes he is Superman and leaps off a tall building is, from the point of view of any sane observer, not acting in a way which will be of any benefit to himself. The person in question, however, does not see the potential outcome of his actions in the same way, and is instead acting in accordance with the first law from his perspective, i.e. the intended benefit may be an improved view, for example.
6. The law does not apply to accidents. The word 'act' is meant to imply a deliberate action : a person tripping over and injuring themselves is clearly not acting to their own benefit. On the way down, however, the person will generally act to minimise their injuries, thereby producing a benefit of sorts.
7. The law does not require a person to produce a benefit for other people whilst acting for their own benefit. A burglar, for example, is clearly benefitting himself at the expense of other people. The law makes no claims about human morality.
8. People will often claim to be acting for another person's benefit to the exclusion of any benefit to themselves. Any such claims are in contradiction to the law and must therefore be false. The aim of such a device is usually to produce an even greater benefit to the person employing it.
9. The benefit which a person hopes to gain from an action they perform may not always be apparent to other people, being of an intrinsically subtle nature or having been deliberately obscured. Nevertheless, the law dictates that such an intended benefit is always present. It behoves one to endeavour to discover such a benefit, as this knowledge will often clarify one's decisions in dealing with such people.
Slashdot Mirror
Global warming is politically difficult to sell to people when they are experiencing record cold.
That's because people tend to take 'global warming' as literally meaning that 'everywhere gets hotter'. Of course, some places get warmer and some get cooler but the average global temperature increases and the planet experiences more erratic and extreme climactic behavior as a consequence. 'Climate change' is a more useful term.
Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.
"Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results"
Really? When was the last time you heard of "blind militant" atheists blowing up people who didn't agree with them?
Close. In fact in the newest version, Solo gives Greedo a pre-emptive blow job.
Thanks for the link - I guess I should try to read more philosophy. By the way, you might like to work on not sounding like a pompous twat the next time you post.
A couple of years ago, I tried to come up with a list of invariants of human behaviour. I managed to think of just one :
All human beings will always act with the intention of producing a benefit for themselves.
This invariably causes a ruckus whenever I mention it. Nobody wants to accept that everybody (including themselves) acts this way all the time, but as yet I haven't found too many exceptions.
Some people think this statement is obvious, but it isn't (how about altruistic behaviour, coercion, etc). Others think it is just plain cynical and nasty. Here are a few of the more obvious arguments against the law (with my counter-arguments) and some clarifying thoughts :
1. The law does not preclude acts of altruism. For example, a person donating blood is obviously not deriving any benefit from losing blood, but they do benefit from feeling a pleasing sense of satisfaction and well being after making the donation. They would not make the donation If they did not derive this pleasure from their act, since there would be no benefit to them in doing so. The same argument applies to all other acts of altruism : any benefit experienced by other people as a result of these acts is essentially a 'side effect' of the act. The act itself will always benefit the person doing it in some way.
2. The law does not state that people will act in a way as to produce the maximum benefit. For example, smokers are acting in a way which clearly does not produce a long term benefit (it kills them), but there is a short term benefit to be had from the 'high' produced by the chemicals in the tobacco and the satisfying of the craving caused by their addiction. The law makes no claims about the rationality of human behaviour.
3. People acting under duress still obey the law. For example, a person who is forced at gunpoint to do something which is ostensibly not in their favour is still acting for their own benefit, since they hope to avoid being shot by complying with the gunman's demands.
4. The law does not state that a benefit will necessarily result from a person's actions, only that the intent will be to produce a benefit. For example, a driver braking suddenly to avoid an accident will not necessarily do so, but the intent to produce this benefit is clearly present.
5. Persons who are generally judged as being mentally incompetent still obey the law. For example, someone who believes he is Superman and leaps off a tall building is, from the point of view of any sane observer, not acting in a way which will be of any benefit to himself. The person in question, however, does not see the potential outcome of his actions in the same way, and is instead acting in accordance with the first law from his perspective, i.e. the intended benefit may be an improved view, for example.
6. The law does not apply to accidents. The word 'act' is meant to imply a deliberate action : a person tripping over and injuring themselves is clearly not acting to their own benefit. On the way down, however, the person will generally act to minimise their injuries, thereby producing a benefit of sorts.
7. The law does not require a person to produce a benefit for other people whilst acting for their own benefit. A burglar, for example, is clearly benefitting himself at the expense of other people. The law makes no claims about human morality.
8. People will often claim to be acting for another person's benefit to the exclusion of any benefit to themselves. Any such claims are in contradiction to the law and must therefore be false. The aim of such a device is usually to produce an even greater benefit to the person employing it.
9. The benefit which a person hopes to gain from an action they perform may not always be apparent to other people, being of an intrinsically subtle nature or having been deliberately obscured. Nevertheless, the law dictates that such an intended benefit is always present. It behoves one to endeavour to discover such a benefit, as this knowledge will often clarify one's decisions in dealing with such people.