Serious question, not trolling: Why do many HackerNewsen seem to feel that global warming is a bad thing? For all we know, the changes brought on by a warmer climate may be great for humanity as a whole.
Another is that rising water levels means flooding coastal areas, which means mass-scale migrations of people who lived there, which will probably end up in wars, famines and generally whole lot of crap for everyone.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Barrier
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Works
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Pass_S-1_of_Saint_P...
From what little I understand: the earth has a lot of carbon dioxide and methane sequestered in permafrost, deep water, and ice. As the average temperature increases, the rate at which these gases are released also increases. So we're in a fairly dangerous positive feedback loop, because it doesn't take much of a temperature change for a lot of the places we live to become uninhabitable.
I forest or a city located where there will no longer be an ample water supply 20 years hence can't just teleport.
But I don't think you can seriously put this forth as an argument that rapid climate change will have a net positive benefit for human welfare.
Also, no such bright side exists for forests and wetlands.
I personally think it will have a net positive effect. It's already forcing us to invest in renewables which means the economic depression from running out of oil will be less.
Rapid climate change is not as rapid as you may think: https://www.quora.com/profile/Richard-Muller-3/answers/Clima...
We know from past experience that previous temperatures are tolerable. If we do not know for sure what would happen with temperatures higher than what we have experience for (if we think it could be somewhat good, but could also be completely devastating), then it is safer to not go to higher temperatures than previously experienced, at least until we have sufficient evidence that higher temperatures would be beneficial, or at least not devastating.
The scientific consensus currently seems to be that the chances of it being devastating are pretty high, and are higher than the chances of it being good instead by the same degree, and therefore, it seems best to avoid the increase in temperature.
That principal is completely unscientific. It's exactly like using Pascal's Wager to convince people to believe in God.
There exist rational arguments to make on behalf of climatic change being an issue, but that is NOT one of them.
What do you mean by this? The principle as I understand it is about what is a good idea to do, not a statement of what will or will not happen in a given situation.
As such, I wouldn't expect it, or things that handle the same questions, to be scientific.
What would it mean for something that plays a similar role to be scientific? (or alternatively, to be not unscientific, if those aren't the same thing.)
> What do you mean by this?
I mean that (and as somebody who believes climatic change is real) the PP is unscientific. It makes intuitive sense to people but deep down it makes no sense at all. It can be used to create infinite technological conservationism for example.
Let's look at Pascal's Wager. Directly from Wikipedia it is:
1. Pascal argues ... if God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.).
2. Pascal argues ... whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
The precautionary principal is Pascal's Wager because it follows the same logic.
1. If Climate Change does not exist, then people will only suffer a finite loss (some types of technology, luxury, taxes).
2. Whereas they receive for practical purposes infinite gains if the planet continues to be a livable environment for humans and avoid infinite losses (the earth broiled to completion aka Venus-Earth aka actual hell).
Anything can be justified under Pascal's Wager, from charity to the Crusades, depending on the rhetorical power and motivation of people trying to persuade us to do things. It is worth noting for example, that the precautionary principal was used in arguments that succeeded in the ban of the use of nuclear energy in my country and many others in Europe, but that nuclear is now returning as people realize it's a good fit for preventing further CO2 emissions. Whether you believe in climate change or not is not important here, you have got to find this disconcerting! How can a technology destroy and save the earth at the same time? The answer is that the world is a complex system and not every choice we make reduces to a dualism.
> The principle as I understand it is about what is a good idea to do, not a statement of what will or will not happen in a given situation.
It is neither a good heuristic for policy nor a scientific principal. This is because as I've said, it is illogical. It generates contradictory conclusions. My hunch is that there exists a class of intellectual ideas that predictably lead to a form of civilizational scale suicide. You see it in the present with the Hale-Bop people, with ISIS today, with the Khmer Rouge and so forth. There is a precautionary principal logic behind their evil, which boils down to the simple: If We Don't Do This (terrible deed) Then It Will Be Worse Later.
I don't think that the people who use the PP in debates understand that they inevitably go to the same place as Ted Kazinksy if they take the principal seriously and not merely for rhetorical affect.
> What would it mean for something that plays a similar role to be scientific?
It is simple: it must not fail the test of being able to repeatedly make predictions and test them. There are lots of things that are not science but clothed in scientism by people trying to advance their aims, often with ulterior motives.
> As such, I wouldn't expect it, or things that handle the same questions, to be scientific.
Then you're particularly clear headed and we don't disagree but believe me many people in the world think the PP is a scientific principal. In another post somebody described this quality as the 'truth-adjacent'. It's something that happens when you mix science with politics or the media get hold of something.
Of course we aren't 100% sure. Some of the dire predictions may not come true. Some may be worse.
But we have some idea what will happen to various parts of the world when the temperature hits +2.0C, +3.0C, and so on, and it ain't pretty.
I'm for one excited for arctic shipping as it's a huge shortcut between the northern Atlantic and eastern Asia. But at the expense of famine or war brought upon by competition of resources in a changing climate? It's a risky game.