In theory communication between people serves as a way to collaboratively teach, learn, arrive at the truth, or share transcendent experience. As some have noticed however, with the wrong motivations language devolves into a form of merely winning arguments.
This speaks to life in general. Are we in it to win arguments or to accomplish goals? We can see this division clearly in the debate over global warming, which could be a threat that eliminates our species entirely and so in theory deserves our front and center focus.
So many people have argued back and forth whether or not global warming is true or false that they have forgotten why they are even arguing in the first place. The real issue that lies hidden under the confusion is the question of protecting the environment.
The global warming debate is merely a “proxy” battle. It is a justification that must be proven in order to move on with the actual goal. Those who believe they should be trying to prove global warming are hoping to win in order to justify protecting the environment. Merely winning the debate accomplishes nothing.
If we were able to offer a totally different justification, and this allowed humanity to unite on the goal of protecting the environment, would you be willing to drop global warming altogether?
If not, you should ask yourself if you are in this debate for the right reasons. Winning the argument without achieving the goal will mean nothing. In theory, any outcome that does not involve achieving the goal is the end of humanity, which leaves us with “by any means necessary.”
As coached by our media, we start to see that phrase in terms of extremism. It points instead to a humbler paradigm: the truth or falsity of global warming is irrelevant. What matters is whether we find some reason, and we probably don’t care what, to protect our environment from ourselves.
43 queries. 0.941 seconds
You really think that “global warming” is an issue of saving the environment?
In an adversarial system where every body is equal, all issues are about me being better than you.
If you don’t like global warming and I do, then you’re a denier and are almost certainly stupid.
If I don’t like global warming and you do, then you’re drinking the Kool-Aide and are almost certainly stupid.
Either way I win.
This article was not about global warming. You have lost either way you liked it or not. :)
We must be reading different articles. This is from the article.
“The real issue that lies hidden under the confusion is the question of protecting the environment.”
To me it seems that this issue is not even about protecting the environment.
You see, “protecting the environment”, not “global warming”.
And at the end of the article: “the truth or falsity of global warming is irrelevant”.
Which is what I attacked, remember this?
You really think that “global warming” is an issue of saving the environment?
“You really think that “global warming” is an issue of saving the environment?”
I read it as follows:
“In this article you have asserted that “global warming” is an issue of saving the environment. Are you really thinking so?”
Note, the author has never expressed his attitude to the global warming issue in the article, just used it as an example of setting wrong goals.
You interpreted correctly. However, his argument relies on the assumption that global warming supporters indeed want to save the environment.
All issues are about me being better than you and everyone else. That way I have the power, and you follow me. For a society of equal’s we like to scramble for power a lot.
“The global warming debate is merely a “proxy” battle. It is a justification that must be proven in order to move on with the actual goal.”
Very good point.
The actual goal of this battle was to make good money; Al Gore et al have achieved it. Hence, there is no threat of “the end of humanity” this time (according to your statement: “In theory, any outcome that does not involve achieving the goal is the end of humanity”).
Are you sure that protecting the environment is the actual goal, or it is a merely next “proxy”?
I’ve changed my mind. I think the writer (Ted Swenson) is arguing that if we assume global warming people are not profiteering, they must actually intend to save the environment. He is giving them more credit than I am but for the majority of them, he is probably right, even if he is wrong in the case of profiteers like Gore and Moore. What do both of those rhyme with?
I understand the article this way:
Stop the argument about the global warming for the sake of winning the argument. Start protecting our environment from ourselves; otherwise the humanity will perish.
I understood it the same way. The question is whether he’s being charitable to those who are interested in global warming, or whether they don’t actually care at all about saving the environment, which is the goal of interest in global warming.
You’re correct. I am assuming that their intentions are good.
Well certainly a bastard could use the guise of “protecting” the environment to achieve something else. It could theoretically be used as a proxy for something else, certainly. But taking motivations and manipulation out of the equation and thinking about the idea, in and of itself, of protecting the environment, no that is not a proxy goal. In fact, it is one of the most fundamental goals of mankind. It is the goal that makes other goals possible. Without a hospitable and sustainable environment, nothing else is possible. No art, no architecture, no economy, no humans, nothing.
In a sense, the article is as much about global warming as it is about how arguments differ from actual goals, and how we justify the way in which we will accomplish our goals. Global warming just happens to be a great way to illustrate it. The reason I assume global warming believers really want to protect the environment is because then, if that really is their goal, they should be willing to consider other rationale. It’s a test about how serious they are about their goals. (This article is almost more for liberals than conservatives).
So the assumption is necessary for the article. But this is the whole point. The global warming debate has become an impediment against the whole goal it purports to justify. Winning the debate has become the goal itself.
As I mention in my last piece, The Immune System, we should listen to the wisdom of our other organs. Protecting the environment (which is a very serious concern and goal) has been boiled down to proving whether or not global warming is true or false, and this stupid debate could go on for years. How about an aesthetic justification, for instance?
Let men found a remedy for supposed global warming issue, established right processes protecting the environment, etc.
Humanity would last longer, develop farther, and the technology would offer a more efficient weapon of mass distraction.
The farther success in medical science would allow even more people with genetic problems to survive and reproduce, thus accumulating more and more these problems.
When the humanity eventually would crash, ether as a result of a next world war, or genetically, or both, this crash would be most likely fatal for the humanity.
Just an analogy: if you fall from a chair, you may get a problem, if you fall from a mountain, it is much more spectacular and most likely fatal.
Should the protection of the environment be considered as an actual goal, or we have one more illusion of men’s ability to behave rationally?
Is it an actual goal or a next level “proxy”?
What is the highest goal, and do we have the ability and the right to define it?
destruction, not distraction, though it may be both.
Correct me if I’m paraphrasing you incorrectly.
You’re basically saying let everything run its course and nature will naturally “save itself” so to speak? In a sense I agree. Paradoxically, you “protect” the environment by not interfering with it. In this sense you’re not really “saving” it as you’re not “doing” anything. Nature does not need us to save it. Nature is not relying on us, I suppose. If that’s your point, it’s a good point.
Maybe I shouldn’t imply it is the “highest goal,” but rather a “fundamental necessity.” Paradoxically you achieve your goal by simply not tinkering and interfering.
For instance, there are examples where foreign fauna will be introduced into an environment to “save” it from other fauna. But then that fauna becomes the new problem over time and the whole thing blows up in our face. This also speaks to the idea that even if global warming is true and it is “solved,” it is merely one little aspect of the larger problem of ecocide.
“Paradoxically, you “protect” the environment by not interfering with it.”
Yes, it is one of my points, and I don’t see a paradox here.
Also I’m trying to approach to the man and the environment without dividing them, as an ecological system.
As any self-regulating system the ecological system has multiple circuits of negative feedback that are bringing it to a dynamically balancing state. Due to the delays in these circuits the process goes with oscillations.
An example: In our neighborhood the population of rabbits grows, which attracts eagles, and next two years we have almost no rabbits. Then they recover because of this “almost”. This oscillation of the rabbits population continues with the same period and amplitude for years.
When people try to improve something in the ecology, the results are unexpected. Remember the Chinese experiment of killing the birds in order to save crops. Birds got extinct, insects boomed, and crops were lost. It took a lot of time to restore the balance.
Men have a great power for making impacts on the ecological system; these impacts usually are followed by the oscillation with longer period and higher amplitude. In extremity it could be the case of complete extermination of species, including humans. Not forever, but for a long period of time that evolution requires to get man from rat.
I’ve read an article about an uranium isotope found somewhere couple of years ago. This isotope had property of the one that could be produced only in an reactor, not as a part of a natural process. This uranium was of a prehistoric age, that means, there probably was a very old civilization, and no artifacts remained after it. What caused them perish, maybe a nuclear war? Who knows.
My main point is, we need to consider the whole system when we try to save something. I don’t believe in rationality of men; therefore it would be better to deal with overpopulation. Here I see a chance of preventing the manmade catastrophes.
If a catastrophe is unavoidable, it is better to have it sooner: in this case it will be not so deep, and more chances for men to survive. Frequent local wars with high rate of casualties are less dangerous than the nuclear world war. Of course, contraceptives work better if men are rational, but where are these rational men?
Humanity should address its own problems first of all. And the right education is essential for surviving. What use is in saving environment in one (or even all) country, while another country is making a mass destruction weapon and people are stupid enough to apply it?
The nuclear winter stops all speculations about global warming and saving the environment.
Bingo. And that’s why I wrote the article. Because overpopulation is a line that “global warmers” and weekend activists won’t cross. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They aren’t that serious about their goal.
Rather than wish for the end of all disagreement, wouldn’t it be smarter to set up a social system that made it possible to reach a concrete conclusion to an agreement?
Think of the options available in a disagreement:
-One side is right
-The other side is right
-Both people are right and the actual truth encompasses both viewpoints
-Both people missed the mark entirely
-We don’t know the answer yet, but there are ways to try to find out
-We don’t know yet and don’t know how to figure it out either
That’s about all there is. Either way, at the core of every disagreement is a fundamental agreement – “Let us, two thinking human beings, find a way to improve the world at some level.”
So long as that is acknowledged, the conclusion to each outcome can be totally sensible.
-You’re right: “Well, the numbers don’t lie.”
-The other side is right: “I hate to admit it but you ARE right, the numbers don’t lie. Let’s put this into practice immediately, I wish I understood sooner.”
-Both people are right and the actual truth encompasses both viewpoints: “The world is a crazy place. At least we got to the bottom of it though.”
-Both people missed the mark entirely: “Back to the drawing board with both of us!”
-We don’t know the answer yet, but there are ways to try to find out: “Let’s both try to figure it out. Or we could work together, if you like.”
-We don’t know yet and don’t know how to figure it out either: “Wouldn’t the obvious solution be to devise a way to figure it out and go from there?”
That’s how solving problems as a society is supposed to work. If we all agreed then eventually we’d all agree on something horribly wrong, like the world does today, and end at a horrific result.
Disagreement and argument aren’t the problem, in fact they could be very powerful if people didn’t turn disagreement into kicking, screaming, scratching, clawing Mortal Kombat battle for superiority.
This has never been about anything other than social and economic control. That’s why nobody invested in climatology’s equivalent to Utah U’s Cold Fusion “Discovery” will admit that they lied through their teeth. And oh yeah, there’s the fact that these liars lied while being funded with other people’s money, but that sort of objection is DeRiguer these days.
Population is the real problem. A population of “individuals”. Reduce this population and most other conservation issue will self solve.
Global warming is a real problem, but any one doesn’t like to accept that the reason is development movements which are without any standard. The concept of development is not environmental friendly.