Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade.
This is not analogous. The 97% consensus is fraudulent. At best, it is agreement only among climate scientists that there is global warming and that it is mostly human-caused. Once you get away from the sliver of scientists who while most knowledgeable about the situation are also the most beholden, then the consensus drops significantly (for example, Earth scientists had agreement of 90% with the assertion that climate had warmed since 1850 and 82% consensus that most of this change was due to humans).
In particular, this is not a consensus on action to fight climate change or the even stronger target of holding global warming at 2C since 1850! It is interesting how so many people, including you, conflate agreement that most global warming is human-caused (which incidentally I agree with), with some hardcore policy decisions. I am part of the "97%", but I don't agree.
Moving on, there is a great deal of hidden disagreement among climate researchers on the reliability of paleoclimate data, the adjustments made while aggregating that data, and the reliability of climate models to predict future climate. For example, cherrypicking from this survey of climate researchers (from 2008), they found that 26% of those surveyed had absolutely no confidence (a "1" on a scale of 1 to 7) in precipitation predictions for the next 50 years and 33% had a similar absence of confidence in extreme weather predictions over the next 50 years. You don't hear about that when the dire warnings of famine and extreme weather come around, do you?
67% do believe strongly (score 6 or 7) that without mitigation or adaption, there will be catastrophic consequences in the next 50 years.
Moving on, the survey asked an interesting question "The best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is:" Here, pure mitigation would be "1" and pure adaptation would be "7". A full 30% straddle the fence at "4". 43% favored mitigation to some degree and 27% favored adaptation. Where is the consensus on holding the line at 2C increase since 1850? It doesn't look like 97% to me.
For those who wish to pay attention and learn something about science, this is what happens when you have a manufactured consensus which doesn't actually consider the opinions of the people supposedly polled and stretches the actual claims to claim far more than was actually asked. It's not science, it's an argument from authority fallacy.
Actual evidence would make selling climate change mitigation a whole lot easier.
FIFM. I already grant that there is some degree of global warming. I don't grant that it is a serious enough problem that we need to impoverish people and societies for it (especially given the counterproductive effects of poverty such as higher population growth and disinterest in environmental affairs).
No, it doesn't work that way. While it is worth noting that there is a staggering amount of irresponsible and stupid borrowing at the level of the state, they are able to get away with that because of the wealth of the societies they represent and which they can tap. Even a country like Greece has considerable wealth left. And if they were to reform their governments and societies, that wealth would come forth.
Honestly the defeatism and lack of ambition is disheartening.
Good. Are you going to worry about real problems now?
There is plenty of evidence going back decades now that global warming is a serious issue.
Good. Show the seriousness of the problem then. It's worth noting here that no one has yet shown that global warming has short term consequences or that it is an urgent problem. They have merely asserted these things.
It is hard to address but to not even try is a serious dereliction of duty to our descendants. Is this a paid shill?
Because you have yet to show that the extreme mitigation measures proposed are less of a dereliction of duty than doing absolutely nothing is. Remember current mitigation efforts are already remarkably ineffective and costly. We are already doing this and it is already a net loss for our descendants.
That's the real tough part about it... By the time we know for sure what will happen, it'd be too late. The risk is just SO HIGH that most scientists recommend playing it safe. Humanity could have a tough time surviving if we get into the "runaway climate change" scenario. Will that happen if the global temperature goes up 1 degree C? 10?
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me. Instead, sounds like a huge argument for doing nothing except the status quo, which is already an extremely beneficial thing for humanity.
Actual evidence would make selling climate change a whole lot easier.
I'm afraid that in local elections and in their public practices, they do seem to be trying _very hard_. The only female candidate I've seen willing to work with them is Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman is another high profile one. Wikipedia lists a number of female politicians associated with the movement.
and the strong conservative religious core of their membership is clear in their handling of birth control rights and funding.
To hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 ÂC] [or] [well below 2 ÂC] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep reductions in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions; (
They are still emphasizing an extreme effort rather than a rational one. There are three obvious rebuttals to this. First, too many parties simply don't have an interest in this. For example, most oil subsidies come from countries whose economies have a significant dependence on exporting oil. Other large fossil fuel-consuming nations, particularly, the US, China, and India have long expressed disinterest in such levels of reduction.
Second, humanity doesn't generate greenhouse gases arbitrarily. Instead it is in pursuit of other priorities. From past missteps, I see strong indications that any serious attempt to meet the requirements of an extreme mitigation effort will result in a global-scale mess.
Third, we still don't have actual evidence that there is a serious problem. We just have, yet again, strongly worded assertions. It really should be a warning sign to everyone when the people pushing this aggressive strategy can't back their claims with facts.
John Stewart did a frightening but very insightful sketch drawing direct comparisons between the American Tea Party and the Taliban. It was funny and chilling at the same time.
Not at all. Why should I find the rule of law, reduction of the extent and power of the US federal government, or responsible fiscal policy to be something to fear? This reminds me of Vox Day's three rules, behavior exhibited by someone incapable of understanding certain contrary beliefs or viewpoints and imbued with a certain passive aggressive behavior:
We see all three behaviors exhibited here. Core beliefs of the Tea Party movement have long been advertised and it is well known that there are non-religious members. So why not only lie that the Tea Party is only about religious beliefs and then double down by comparing the resulting Tea Party strawman to the Taliban with a woodenly delivered list of negative attributes that are to some degree shared by the not particularly self-aware, Stewart?
These are immature behaviors of someone who lacks wisdom not something to respect.
There are lots of people of all sorts of beliefs and ideologies who are concerned about government overreach, such as NSA spying, extending globally the stranglehold of excessive IP protection, and feeling people up at US airports. At some point, if you aren't a complete fool, you have to realize that the religious aren't your enemies, they are your neighbors, your friends and relatives, and your natural political allies on some really important issues.
The Tea Party is not a reenactment of the Handmaiden's Tale. It's in response to some serious problems that threaten the future of the US. I believe we should wonder why so many people are working so hard to discredit them on such flimsy pretexts.
I don't buy that you know more about me than I do. I actually have experience with these very scenarios and observed the way I felt. Further, since we're delving into pop psychology, the obvious rebuttal here is that you are projecting. Claiming certainty about some person's opinions or feelings which you know nothing of is an indication that you are not beyond self-deception.
Irrelevant. You said "none of your money". A very sizable part of my money goes into taxes and is subsequently spent by my government. I want and expect them to spend it well and efficiently.
How sizable? How many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is your tax contribution again? I don't care if you think the small amount you actually throw in is sizable - I don't agree obvious.
Instead of being "irrelevant", this is classic inefficient dynamics of pooling funds, but not costs. The result is that the ones driving the choices that generate cost are nearly fully insulated from the consequences of their individual bad decisions even though they aren't insulated from the bad decisions of everyone collectively. It is a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
The classic example is a huge group of friends, let's say 20, buying lunch at a restaurant. If they each buy their own meal, then they all have strong incentives to be cost effective. Every dollar of food they consume, they pay for. The decision is directly attached to the resulting cost.
Now, suppose they switch to paying an equal share of the total check. The incentives have changed greatly since now every dollar of food consumed is only 5 cents saved by the person doing the consuming. For example, if you're the only one holding back, you just saved yourself 5 cents of every dollar you didn't eat. This leads to a strong incentive to consume more food since cost of one's choices are nearly detached. It also leads to additional inefficiencies such as wasting uneaten food or waiters stealing from the group via various tricks.
If the group continues to grow or the payment scheme becomes even more opaque, then opportunities for inefficiency, theft, and fraud grow.
Unlike a government, there is a safety release, namely, the diners can choose to stop participating. If they don't like paying $40 or $100 for a $10 meal, they can just leave.
So now consider a government with thousands to millions of members, It's not much skin off your teeth tax-wise, if the government greatly expands or contracts spending on a particular thing. The end result is that everyone wants government to increase spending on the things that they want. Every government is susceptible to this sort of gravy train herd behavior.
I'm sorry you live in a country with such a shitty government, but you shouldn't extrapolate your situation to everywhere else.
Sure. As I've said before, I don't buy it. There is no such thing as an efficient national level government. No exceptions. A very common example is national defense.
Good, the next step is understanding that broadly stating that 'governments' are unreliable or incapable of spending money in the right way is just scapegoating and pointing in the wrong direction. The point here is that all institutions are unreliable to some extent. They all require a structure that mitigates as much of it as possible (checks and balances and what have you). None of them, private or public, are inherently incapable of working properly.
Inefficiency is not a bit you set.
Yeah, no. I'm sorry, but you don't get to change the definition of charity to fit your narrative. Giving a homeless guy 5 bucks is charity, but it's far from a given that it will make the world a better place.
I'd like to reiterate that we're discussing how charitable behaviour is influenced if you give people something significant and tangible in return
Some 'banana expert' went to Asia to check the banana disease, he wore a pair of boots into the plantation which was affected
Some months later, that same 'expert' went to Africa - and he wore the *SAME* pair of boots and walked into a pristine banana plantation (absolutely no disease) and the fungi which hitched a ride on his boot was transferred into the soil, and from there onwards Africa's banana are no longer disease free
I'd say Venus or a small asteroid/comet would come close. The latter because small objects would be relatively easy to have single climates and the former due to the smoothing effects of around two orders more atmosphere.
You're clearly not getting it. The point was not the 'feeling' part, but the 'nothing [tangible] in return' part.
Let me up the ante: Would it still feel the same if when you made a charitable 'donation' it would effectively cost you nothing?
Yes.
Are you implying I don't pay taxes? Are you implying that all governments are unreliable and will always fail at spending money because they are 'corruptible'? Do you really think private organisations are not 'corruptible'? You think cronyism isn't a thing in those? Do you not realize what a contradiction in terms it is to imply that a government can't be trusted to spend money, but can be trusted to subsidize private entities?
I am implying that you pay an insignficant amount of taxes compared to the budgets of the governments which tax you. I am implying that all governments are unreliable and they do fail quite frequently at spending money on the advertised purposes of government. I think cronyism is quite a thing in both public and private sectors. And why suddenly, do you care whether it is a contradiction to simultaneously spend money while abstaining from some means to take money?
Yes, it was. Stupid and misguided, but charity nonetheless. Doing things which you believe will make the world a better place doesn't mean they actually will. There are still Christian charities that try to 'cure' gayness.
But more importantly here: this is completely besides the fucking point.
No, it's not. Charity is no more about the empty ritual of sacrifice than it was about the touchee feelies. Sure, charity is a gift, but a gift that always has strings and expectations attached. Peoples' motivations for charity differ greatly. It can be about feeling good or it can be about status building. The real test has always been "does this gift make the world a better place?" If it does, no matter how glorious or base the motivations, no matter how large or small the sacrifice or contribution, it is charity and is a good thing.
Have you ever done something for someone just because you thought they deserved or needed it? Did it make you feel good?
Would you have felt the same if they paid you for it?
Yes and yes.
Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return?
Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?
Absolutely not. Charity is first and foremost about making the world a better place not bullshit feelings.
I think the best example of why charity is not feelings is the conquest of the New World by the European powers of the day. While many of the would-be conquerors were driven by the usual mix of human ambitions like greed, power, status, etc, a number were driven by religious beliefs, particularly, the opportunity to save souls and to bring the many benefits of European civilization to the godless, ignorant heathens.
This had two loathsome consequences: contributing to the spread of Old World diseases which Native Americans had little resistance to and forcing vast numbers of people to adopt societal models which were ill-adapted to New World circumstances. I'm sure there were plenty of do-gooders who had all the right good feelings and hopes while they contributed to the deaths of tens of millions of people and created the near endless suffering that is still with us today.
I think your boxes could be checked off, but was it charity? No.
Even now, I still hear occasional stories of various would-be charities and missionaries going to various American Indian tribes and expecting the locals to behave in ways convenient to the would-be charitable do-gooders expectations (eg, "bible studies start at 6 pm sharp, why aren't the children coming in right on time?"). The wise ones learn not to do that.
Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return?
Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?
Well, does it feel any better when none of your money is at stake and it is all taxpayer money apportioned out by a corruptible legislature?
No. Determining whether organizations are actually charities and deciding to allow spending an uncontrolled amount of taxation income on them is far less efficient than just determining what causes are worth pursuing and collectively spending the taxation income on it (except then people see it as 'wasteful government spending' instead of the collective charity it is -- remember at this point that subsidies are also government spending).
Sorry, I don't buy that in the least. This sort of thinking is already responsible for a lot of government spending problems (including the nasty "austerity" phenomena where governments and societies are forced to spend within certain limits by external forces). It's also responsible for a lot of corruption and graft.
The thought 'Yeah, I'm doing it for the people. Also, it makes for a nice tax deduction!' actually takes away part of the gratification you feel on account of the altruistic part of it, making you less prone to be altruistic in the future.
And without tax breaks this would have never happened, right?
I can see two closely related arguments. First, charity is something you want to subsidize. Second, it allows charity money to be a lot more effective. For example, at the highest US tax bracket of 35%, money donated to charity goes about 50% further than if it were spent on a new yacht.
The argument is there is no basis whatsoever to think that dirty energy practices here would've somehow prevented the ascension of China.
No, that's not the argument. The argument was that nobody has to pay attention to business complaints because they are toothless. That's patently false, just look at 50 years of off-shoring and automating away of jobs.
Then the argument was that labor is dirt cheap in China while ignoring that the US does many things, such as arbitrarily setting SOx emission standards without regard for cost, to make the matter worse. And then dismissing any such problems as "it would have happened anyway", which is variation of the "we didn't need that industry anyway" argument.
Now, it's China would be a powerful economy anyway. Finally, here is an argument that is correct, but I'm not impressed by the torturous route that it took to get there or the irrelevance to the original claims made in this thread.
In fact if I developed such an advance tomorrow I'd be burning my notes! We haven't got a handle on problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation as it is -- a significant boost in the human lifespan would likely be a total disaster.
I think this is patently false. After all, why do people engage in short-sighted behavior in the first place? In large part, it's because long term consequences aren't their problem. They won't be alive to be concerned about consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
Arguing time frame is rearranging the deck chairs. If anyone cares about society as is, the sooner we reduce CO2 emissions, the better.
Unless, of course, doing it sooner is bad for humanity and the environment. Mitigation isn't free. There are huge costs associated with it.
You will die eventually. The sooner the better, right?
Cliffs could be anywhere. Why should I worry more about cliffs here than elsewhere? You need evidence in order to avoid blind decisions.
Suppose 97% of your military commanders came forward and told you they believed that a country would invade.
This is not analogous. The 97% consensus is fraudulent. At best, it is agreement only among climate scientists that there is global warming and that it is mostly human-caused. Once you get away from the sliver of scientists who while most knowledgeable about the situation are also the most beholden, then the consensus drops significantly (for example, Earth scientists had agreement of 90% with the assertion that climate had warmed since 1850 and 82% consensus that most of this change was due to humans).
In particular, this is not a consensus on action to fight climate change or the even stronger target of holding global warming at 2C since 1850! It is interesting how so many people, including you, conflate agreement that most global warming is human-caused (which incidentally I agree with), with some hardcore policy decisions. I am part of the "97%", but I don't agree.
Moving on, there is a great deal of hidden disagreement among climate researchers on the reliability of paleoclimate data, the adjustments made while aggregating that data, and the reliability of climate models to predict future climate. For example, cherrypicking from this survey of climate researchers (from 2008), they found that 26% of those surveyed had absolutely no confidence (a "1" on a scale of 1 to 7) in precipitation predictions for the next 50 years and 33% had a similar absence of confidence in extreme weather predictions over the next 50 years. You don't hear about that when the dire warnings of famine and extreme weather come around, do you?
67% do believe strongly (score 6 or 7) that without mitigation or adaption, there will be catastrophic consequences in the next 50 years.
Moving on, the survey asked an interesting question "The best approach to resolving the problems related to climate change is:" Here, pure mitigation would be "1" and pure adaptation would be "7". A full 30% straddle the fence at "4". 43% favored mitigation to some degree and 27% favored adaptation. Where is the consensus on holding the line at 2C increase since 1850? It doesn't look like 97% to me.
For those who wish to pay attention and learn something about science, this is what happens when you have a manufactured consensus which doesn't actually consider the opinions of the people supposedly polled and stretches the actual claims to claim far more than was actually asked. It's not science, it's an argument from authority fallacy.
Actual evidence would make selling climate change mitigation a whole lot easier.
FIFM. I already grant that there is some degree of global warming. I don't grant that it is a serious enough problem that we need to impoverish people and societies for it (especially given the counterproductive effects of poverty such as higher population growth and disinterest in environmental affairs).
Nations that have debt have no wealth.
No, it doesn't work that way. While it is worth noting that there is a staggering amount of irresponsible and stupid borrowing at the level of the state, they are able to get away with that because of the wealth of the societies they represent and which they can tap. Even a country like Greece has considerable wealth left. And if they were to reform their governments and societies, that wealth would come forth.
Honestly the defeatism and lack of ambition is disheartening.
Good. Are you going to worry about real problems now?
There is plenty of evidence going back decades now that global warming is a serious issue.
Good. Show the seriousness of the problem then. It's worth noting here that no one has yet shown that global warming has short term consequences or that it is an urgent problem. They have merely asserted these things.
It is hard to address but to not even try is a serious dereliction of duty to our descendants. Is this a paid shill?
Because you have yet to show that the extreme mitigation measures proposed are less of a dereliction of duty than doing absolutely nothing is. Remember current mitigation efforts are already remarkably ineffective and costly. We are already doing this and it is already a net loss for our descendants.
But sure, I must be a shill.
That's the real tough part about it... By the time we know for sure what will happen, it'd be too late. The risk is just SO HIGH that most scientists recommend playing it safe. Humanity could have a tough time surviving if we get into the "runaway climate change" scenario. Will that happen if the global temperature goes up 1 degree C? 10?
We don't know what will happen, but we're somehow supernaturally confident it'll be too late to do anything about it. Doesn't sound like a reason for urgency to me. Instead, sounds like a huge argument for doing nothing except the status quo, which is already an extremely beneficial thing for humanity.
Actual evidence would make selling climate change a whole lot easier.
I'm afraid that in local elections and in their public practices, they do seem to be trying _very hard_. The only female candidate I've seen willing to work with them is Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman is another high profile one. Wikipedia lists a number of female politicians associated with the movement.
and the strong conservative religious core of their membership is clear in their handling of birth control rights and funding.
So? That's just confirmation bias.
To hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 ÂC] [or] [well below 2 ÂC] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep reductions in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions; (
They are still emphasizing an extreme effort rather than a rational one. There are three obvious rebuttals to this. First, too many parties simply don't have an interest in this. For example, most oil subsidies come from countries whose economies have a significant dependence on exporting oil. Other large fossil fuel-consuming nations, particularly, the US, China, and India have long expressed disinterest in such levels of reduction.
Second, humanity doesn't generate greenhouse gases arbitrarily. Instead it is in pursuit of other priorities. From past missteps, I see strong indications that any serious attempt to meet the requirements of an extreme mitigation effort will result in a global-scale mess.
Third, we still don't have actual evidence that there is a serious problem. We just have, yet again, strongly worded assertions. It really should be a warning sign to everyone when the people pushing this aggressive strategy can't back their claims with facts.
John Stewart did a frightening but very insightful sketch drawing direct comparisons between the American Tea Party and the Taliban. It was funny and chilling at the same time.
Not at all. Why should I find the rule of law, reduction of the extent and power of the US federal government, or responsible fiscal policy to be something to fear? This reminds me of Vox Day's three rules, behavior exhibited by someone incapable of understanding certain contrary beliefs or viewpoints and imbued with a certain passive aggressive behavior:
1) Always lie.
2) Always double down.
3) Always project.
We see all three behaviors exhibited here. Core beliefs of the Tea Party movement have long been advertised and it is well known that there are non-religious members. So why not only lie that the Tea Party is only about religious beliefs and then double down by comparing the resulting Tea Party strawman to the Taliban with a woodenly delivered list of negative attributes that are to some degree shared by the not particularly self-aware, Stewart?
These are immature behaviors of someone who lacks wisdom not something to respect.
There are lots of people of all sorts of beliefs and ideologies who are concerned about government overreach, such as NSA spying, extending globally the stranglehold of excessive IP protection, and feeling people up at US airports. At some point, if you aren't a complete fool, you have to realize that the religious aren't your enemies, they are your neighbors, your friends and relatives, and your natural political allies on some really important issues.
The Tea Party is not a reenactment of the Handmaiden's Tale. It's in response to some serious problems that threaten the future of the US. I believe we should wonder why so many people are working so hard to discredit them on such flimsy pretexts.
You're lying. Mostly to yourself.
I don't buy that you know more about me than I do. I actually have experience with these very scenarios and observed the way I felt. Further, since we're delving into pop psychology, the obvious rebuttal here is that you are projecting. Claiming certainty about some person's opinions or feelings which you know nothing of is an indication that you are not beyond self-deception.
Irrelevant. You said "none of your money". A very sizable part of my money goes into taxes and is subsequently spent by my government. I want and expect them to spend it well and efficiently.
How sizable? How many tens or hundreds of billions of dollars is your tax contribution again? I don't care if you think the small amount you actually throw in is sizable - I don't agree obvious. Instead of being "irrelevant", this is classic inefficient dynamics of pooling funds, but not costs. The result is that the ones driving the choices that generate cost are nearly fully insulated from the consequences of their individual bad decisions even though they aren't insulated from the bad decisions of everyone collectively. It is a classic tragedy of the commons situation.
The classic example is a huge group of friends, let's say 20, buying lunch at a restaurant. If they each buy their own meal, then they all have strong incentives to be cost effective. Every dollar of food they consume, they pay for. The decision is directly attached to the resulting cost.
Now, suppose they switch to paying an equal share of the total check. The incentives have changed greatly since now every dollar of food consumed is only 5 cents saved by the person doing the consuming. For example, if you're the only one holding back, you just saved yourself 5 cents of every dollar you didn't eat. This leads to a strong incentive to consume more food since cost of one's choices are nearly detached. It also leads to additional inefficiencies such as wasting uneaten food or waiters stealing from the group via various tricks.
If the group continues to grow or the payment scheme becomes even more opaque, then opportunities for inefficiency, theft, and fraud grow.
Unlike a government, there is a safety release, namely, the diners can choose to stop participating. If they don't like paying $40 or $100 for a $10 meal, they can just leave.
So now consider a government with thousands to millions of members, It's not much skin off your teeth tax-wise, if the government greatly expands or contracts spending on a particular thing. The end result is that everyone wants government to increase spending on the things that they want. Every government is susceptible to this sort of gravy train herd behavior.
I'm sorry you live in a country with such a shitty government, but you shouldn't extrapolate your situation to everywhere else.
Sure. As I've said before, I don't buy it. There is no such thing as an efficient national level government. No exceptions. A very common example is national defense.
Good, the next step is understanding that broadly stating that 'governments' are unreliable or incapable of spending money in the right way is just scapegoating and pointing in the wrong direction. The point here is that all institutions are unreliable to some extent. They all require a structure that mitigates as much of it as possible (checks and balances and what have you). None of them, private or public, are inherently incapable of working properly.
Inefficiency is not a bit you set.
Yeah, no. I'm sorry, but you don't get to change the definition of charity to fit your narrative. Giving a homeless guy 5 bucks is charity, but it's far from a given that it will make the world a better place.
I'd like to reiterate that we're discussing how charitable behaviour is influenced if you give people something significant and tangible in return
Some 'banana expert' went to Asia to check the banana disease, he wore a pair of boots into the plantation which was affected
Some months later, that same 'expert' went to Africa - and he wore the *SAME* pair of boots and walked into a pristine banana plantation (absolutely no disease) and the fungi which hitched a ride on his boot was transferred into the soil, and from there onwards Africa's banana are no longer disease free
Unless it didn't happen that way.
America is a semi-theocracy (in the sense conservatives have used religion to bolster pro-war agendas)
Any democracy is a "semi-theocracy" in the sense that they have religious voters.
I'd say Venus or a small asteroid/comet would come close. The latter because small objects would be relatively easy to have single climates and the former due to the smoothing effects of around two orders more atmosphere.
You're clearly not getting it. The point was not the 'feeling' part, but the 'nothing [tangible] in return' part.
Let me up the ante: Would it still feel the same if when you made a charitable 'donation' it would effectively cost you nothing?
Yes.
Are you implying I don't pay taxes? Are you implying that all governments are unreliable and will always fail at spending money because they are 'corruptible'? Do you really think private organisations are not 'corruptible'? You think cronyism isn't a thing in those? Do you not realize what a contradiction in terms it is to imply that a government can't be trusted to spend money, but can be trusted to subsidize private entities?
I am implying that you pay an insignficant amount of taxes compared to the budgets of the governments which tax you. I am implying that all governments are unreliable and they do fail quite frequently at spending money on the advertised purposes of government. I think cronyism is quite a thing in both public and private sectors. And why suddenly, do you care whether it is a contradiction to simultaneously spend money while abstaining from some means to take money?
Yes, it was. Stupid and misguided, but charity nonetheless. Doing things which you believe will make the world a better place doesn't mean they actually will. There are still Christian charities that try to 'cure' gayness. But more importantly here: this is completely besides the fucking point.
No, it's not. Charity is no more about the empty ritual of sacrifice than it was about the touchee feelies. Sure, charity is a gift, but a gift that always has strings and expectations attached. Peoples' motivations for charity differ greatly. It can be about feeling good or it can be about status building. The real test has always been "does this gift make the world a better place?" If it does, no matter how glorious or base the motivations, no matter how large or small the sacrifice or contribution, it is charity and is a good thing.
Have you ever done something for someone just because you thought they deserved or needed it? Did it make you feel good?
Would you have felt the same if they paid you for it?
Yes and yes.
Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return?
Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?
Absolutely not. Charity is first and foremost about making the world a better place not bullshit feelings.
I think the best example of why charity is not feelings is the conquest of the New World by the European powers of the day. While many of the would-be conquerors were driven by the usual mix of human ambitions like greed, power, status, etc, a number were driven by religious beliefs, particularly, the opportunity to save souls and to bring the many benefits of European civilization to the godless, ignorant heathens.
This had two loathsome consequences: contributing to the spread of Old World diseases which Native Americans had little resistance to and forcing vast numbers of people to adopt societal models which were ill-adapted to New World circumstances. I'm sure there were plenty of do-gooders who had all the right good feelings and hopes while they contributed to the deaths of tens of millions of people and created the near endless suffering that is still with us today.
I think your boxes could be checked off, but was it charity? No.
Even now, I still hear occasional stories of various would-be charities and missionaries going to various American Indian tribes and expecting the locals to behave in ways convenient to the would-be charitable do-gooders expectations (eg, "bible studies start at 6 pm sharp, why aren't the children coming in right on time?"). The wise ones learn not to do that.
Isn't giving to charity supposed to be spending your time or other resources and getting nothing but a good feeling and hope for a better world in return? Would it really feel the same if it only cost you half and the other taxpayers the other half?
Well, does it feel any better when none of your money is at stake and it is all taxpayer money apportioned out by a corruptible legislature?
No. Determining whether organizations are actually charities and deciding to allow spending an uncontrolled amount of taxation income on them is far less efficient than just determining what causes are worth pursuing and collectively spending the taxation income on it (except then people see it as 'wasteful government spending' instead of the collective charity it is -- remember at this point that subsidies are also government spending).
Sorry, I don't buy that in the least. This sort of thinking is already responsible for a lot of government spending problems (including the nasty "austerity" phenomena where governments and societies are forced to spend within certain limits by external forces). It's also responsible for a lot of corruption and graft.
The thought 'Yeah, I'm doing it for the people. Also, it makes for a nice tax deduction!' actually takes away part of the gratification you feel on account of the altruistic part of it, making you less prone to be altruistic in the future.
Don't buy that in the least.
And without tax breaks this would have never happened, right?
I can see two closely related arguments. First, charity is something you want to subsidize. Second, it allows charity money to be a lot more effective. For example, at the highest US tax bracket of 35%, money donated to charity goes about 50% further than if it were spent on a new yacht.
Why do you think taxation is a complex problem?
Most of the congressional leaders weren't black. And once again, you are ignoring serious incompetence here.
The argument is there is no basis whatsoever to think that dirty energy practices here would've somehow prevented the ascension of China.
No, that's not the argument. The argument was that nobody has to pay attention to business complaints because they are toothless. That's patently false, just look at 50 years of off-shoring and automating away of jobs.
Then the argument was that labor is dirt cheap in China while ignoring that the US does many things, such as arbitrarily setting SOx emission standards without regard for cost, to make the matter worse. And then dismissing any such problems as "it would have happened anyway", which is variation of the "we didn't need that industry anyway" argument.
Now, it's China would be a powerful economy anyway. Finally, here is an argument that is correct, but I'm not impressed by the torturous route that it took to get there or the irrelevance to the original claims made in this thread.
In fact if I developed such an advance tomorrow I'd be burning my notes! We haven't got a handle on problems of overpopulation and environmental degradation as it is -- a significant boost in the human lifespan would likely be a total disaster.
I think this is patently false. After all, why do people engage in short-sighted behavior in the first place? In large part, it's because long term consequences aren't their problem. They won't be alive to be concerned about consequences.
Do you honestly think you could convince people to stop procreating?
In a straight up exchange for immortality? They'd be chomping at the bit.
In 1563, Ponce de Leon said we would have a cure for aging within 5 years. 2 years later he claimed to have found the Fountain of Youth.
I would expect the scientific method and a lot of elbow grease to be more successful at this task than yet another real estate scam in Florida.
A cure for aging is a few years away, and always will be.
You're probably right for now, but scientific progress sooner or later is going to real that goal.
I don't see any addition fact in your post. I see a lot of assertion.