So if we stand back, as Al Gore asks us to do, and look at it from the coming generation's point of view, they are going to ask 'what were they thinking?' They tried to do a tiny little bit about climate change at a fairly high cost, but have done very little good, whereas there are many other problems that they could have tackled that would have left a much better world behind.
I'm firmly in Lomborg's camp here. Sure, people should do whatever they're passionate about to reduce human suffering. But some things are more effective than others, and pointing that out does not amount to discouraging people from acting at all.
2 comments:
I think "angering" is a little strong. Given what you see on other blogs, I expected an anonymous poster had typed a string of profanities. How sorely disappointed I was. Although I guess it is germaine to point to the earlier post.
Do I have anything to say on the post subject itself? No, not really. :)
Yeah, first of all, I wasn't angry. I was just stating an opinion. I think it was probably way too abstract. I guess I just think people should be positive. I get annoyed when people trash someone's well-meaning action and say "there are lots of better things to do instead." Well, that person very well might agree if they knew what these things were and if they had the power to do them. Tell us what we can do, positively and actively. I think Lomborg in this interview here is good about that. I also liked that compact fluorescent lightbulb guy you linked to a while ago. And the nail guy below. I think my other comment was sort of just a personal peeve launched out of nowhere.
Post a Comment