mothcorrupteth
Old Whig Monarchist, Classically Realpolitik
- Jun 3, 2017
- 498
- 439
- 38
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
It regularly used to be 90-100 degrees outside in summer when I was a kid. It still is. I just notice it more now because I'm an adult with a smaller surface area relative to my volume to shed heat through.
As I've stated before in different threads, I think the evidence that global warming is anthropogenic is overstated. But as a conservative, my natural inclination is to assume that changing stuff carries more risk than reward. We were hunter-gatherers for several thousand years, and despite driving all the mammalian megafauna to extinction, we generally existed in equilibrium with our environment. Then we invented agriculture and the problems started. But then we (and by "we" I mean the classical liberals and not conservatives) invented mass industry, and the engineers in mass industry invented science fiction to romanticize the idea that their inventions would propel humanity into a state of perfection. 2001: A Space Odyssey. We ought to have stopped at agriculture. Enough rewards to make the risk worth it. But here we are. Thanks to an earlier iteration of progressives.
Supposing global warming is anthropogenic, I doubt you can realistically curb it. The rewards matrix in our little game of Prisoner's Dilemma clearly suggests to China that it will suffer economically and thus geopolitically if it agrees to cooperate with the restrictions we set on it, and Russia actually has strategic incentives to accelerate climate change. Either way, I think Stanley Kubrick said it best that, even though man is not a noble savage, the ignoble savagery of the libertarian droogs is far preferable to the inhumanity of the authoritarian, coercive state. If the condition for saving our species is to make bovine flatulence illegal, I would just rather die eating delicious steak. Better to cut a life worth living short than to subsist on gluten-free salad, no matter how good poppyseed dressing gets.
As I've stated before in different threads, I think the evidence that global warming is anthropogenic is overstated. But as a conservative, my natural inclination is to assume that changing stuff carries more risk than reward. We were hunter-gatherers for several thousand years, and despite driving all the mammalian megafauna to extinction, we generally existed in equilibrium with our environment. Then we invented agriculture and the problems started. But then we (and by "we" I mean the classical liberals and not conservatives) invented mass industry, and the engineers in mass industry invented science fiction to romanticize the idea that their inventions would propel humanity into a state of perfection. 2001: A Space Odyssey. We ought to have stopped at agriculture. Enough rewards to make the risk worth it. But here we are. Thanks to an earlier iteration of progressives.
Supposing global warming is anthropogenic, I doubt you can realistically curb it. The rewards matrix in our little game of Prisoner's Dilemma clearly suggests to China that it will suffer economically and thus geopolitically if it agrees to cooperate with the restrictions we set on it, and Russia actually has strategic incentives to accelerate climate change. Either way, I think Stanley Kubrick said it best that, even though man is not a noble savage, the ignoble savagery of the libertarian droogs is far preferable to the inhumanity of the authoritarian, coercive state. If the condition for saving our species is to make bovine flatulence illegal, I would just rather die eating delicious steak. Better to cut a life worth living short than to subsist on gluten-free salad, no matter how good poppyseed dressing gets.
Upvote
0