2,855
edits
Logical fallacies: Difference between revisions
m
→“It's too late, I won’t make a difference.”
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
=== '''"We will innovate out of the crisis."''' === | === '''"We will innovate out of the crisis."''' === | ||
This is called the ecomodernist argument it has been around for centuries. Think about it this way... Imagine you decided to start smoking, a pack a day, maybe two. I might say but that's bad! It will kill you! then you *shrug* and say medicine will find a cure, just as it always has. | This is called the ''ecomodernist argument'' it has been around for centuries. Think about it this way... Imagine you decided to start smoking, a pack a day, maybe two. I might say but that's bad! It will kill you! then you *shrug* and say medicine will find a cure, just as it always has. | ||
=== '''“It's too late, I won’t make a difference.”''' === | === '''“It's too late, I won’t make a difference.”''' === | ||
This is termed the singularity argument. A counter argument to which is: ''What’s the alternative?'' Sitting on the sidelines, while others right this collective wrong? That’s not fair on us. The "don't bother keep consuming" narrative is a contagious and profitable message that continually tries to demoralize and demotivate any and all momentum and benefits a very select few. | This is termed the ''singularity argument''. A counter argument to which is: ''What’s the alternative?'' Sitting on the sidelines, while others right this collective wrong? That’s not fair on us. The "don't bother keep consuming" narrative is a contagious and profitable message that continually tries to demoralize and demotivate any and all momentum and benefits a very select few. | ||
=== '''“It’s the government’s problem.”''' === | === '''“It’s the government’s problem.”''' === | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
=== '''"Capitalism has brought a massive increase in the standard of living for all, how can you argue against it?"''' === | === '''"Capitalism has brought a massive increase in the standard of living for all, how can you argue against it?"''' === | ||
There is no doubt that capitalism has brought incredible stuff but it has brought us thus far. We now know that infinite growth in a closed system won't work. | There is no doubt that capitalism has brought incredible stuff but it has brought us thus far. We now know that infinite growth in a closed system won't work. We need to see this in context of the [[Sunk Cost Fallacy|sunk cost fallacy]]. | ||
=== '''“It’s too expensive!”''' === | === '''“It’s too expensive!”''' === | ||
This is the so-called economic argument against mitigating climate change: that it’s cheaper to adjust to a hotter planet. Even if this were factually unassailable (spoiler alert: it’s not), it would be morally flawed. It relies on what philosophers call utilitarianism – the view that we should maximise overall welfare (often, in practice, overall money) even if some people suffer desperately along the way. That’s in direct contradiction to the most basic intuition of common sense morality. It disregards human rights. | This is the so-called ''economic argument'' against mitigating climate change: that it’s cheaper to adjust to a hotter planet. Even if this were factually unassailable (spoiler alert: it’s not), it would be morally flawed. It relies on what philosophers call utilitarianism – the view that we should maximise overall welfare (often, in practice, overall money) even if some people suffer desperately along the way. That’s in direct contradiction to the most basic intuition of common sense morality. It disregards human rights. | ||
Even if we swallowed this pill, it takes another questionable assumption to make the anti-mitigation sums add up. These economic arguments, says the philosopher Simon Caney, assume that future people’s pain, even their deaths, count for less in the cost-benefit calculations if these are further in the future. That isn’t standard economic discounting; it’s discounting the lives of our descendants. | Even if we swallowed this pill, it takes another questionable assumption to make the anti-mitigation sums add up. These economic arguments, says the philosopher Simon Caney, assume that future people’s pain, even their deaths, count for less in the cost-benefit calculations if these are further in the future. That isn’t standard economic discounting; it’s discounting the lives of our descendants. | ||