These are major assumptions that make sense

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.
Still thinking like a Kantian. Too bad you don't understand the concept of Equifinality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifinality

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
That being said, it is obvious that your left-brained filter that only sees in black and white statistics...
What is obvious is that your "right-brained filter" is finding nuance in a scenario that has none. Extinction.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
...does not permit you to discern any difference between humans making honest (albeit foolish) mistakes as they attempt to thrive and procreate, and that of a deliberate decision to destroy the world.
Strawman. I have recognized the distinctions and I have concluded it to be inconsequential. Because the outcome is exactly the same.

Equifinality.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
And btw, in case you hadn’t noticed, this is a “philosophy” forum where we attempt to analyze the world from a philosophical perspective.
And philosophy is the "love of wisdom" right? So then why are you so wisDUMB?

You are trying to argue for a position that "becoming extinct by trashing the habitat through ignorance" is morally superior to "becoming extinct by intentional nuclear war" despite the principle of equifinality.

Hanlon's razor applies: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
Would you say that death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria?
From a moral standpoint, yes, death by murder is infinitely worse than death by malaria.
Who is taking this "moral standpoint". You? Are you looking prospectively or retrospectively? In an event of extinction there is no retrospection so by process of elimination I can only assume that you are speaking prospectively.

So looking prospectively from your present 'moral' standpoint. You claim that you prefer death-by-malaria than death-by-murder.

Can wisDUMB the philosopher tell us why?

Me? I prefer not-dying. HOW I die doesn't bother me one bit.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
However, it is quite clear that morality does not factor-in to your “survival-of-the-fittest” mentality.
Another strawman.

Morality factors so deeply into my reasoning that anybody who thinks there's something worse than human extinction is morally bankrupt.
If you are trying to spin a story that one way of becoming extinct is better than another way of becoming extinct. You are morally bankrupt.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
...adequately counters your claim.
It doesn't counter my claim. It merely demonstrates your inability to reason about change-over-time. Calculus.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
The Dictionary wrote: ra•tion•al•i•ty
noun
1. the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Is that so?

Please express the reasonable/logical/mathematical process by which you have concluded that death-by-murder is worse than death-by-malaria.
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
It’s okay, Logik, we all make mistakes. Owning up to them is another story. :wink:
Well, lets test this claim. You've made a number of mistakes in your reasoning. I am busy correcting them.
Any time you feel the need to own up to your error - do so.
Till then - I'll continue to make an example out of you.

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:48 am
In the past I have been accused of a passive aggressiveness in my insults of others.

Apparently you prefer the direct approach. :D
Very much so. It saves time.

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm
As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.
Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am
Still thinking like a Kantian. Too bad you don't understand the concept of Equifinality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equifinality
And it’s too bad that you don’t understand the concept of what it means to be a hypocrite.

You keep wanting to make this an argument about extinction when in truth it is an argument about your brazen hypocrisy.

Let’s do a quick review:

You had it pointed out to you that Americans produce almost two and a half times more co2 pollution per capita than the Chinese per capita, to which you argued that China - as a whole - produces way more pollution than America.

The problem is that you failed to include the fact that China’s population is more than four times that of America.

In which case, it doesn’t take a lot of math skills to determine that if America’s population matched that of China’s population then we would be out-polluting them by leaps and bounds.

The point is that your “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy completely strips you of any semblance of moral authority to pass judgment on China.

Furthermore, the very idea that destroying the world in all-out nuclear war in order to save the world from pollution is so ludicrous that I can barely believe that I am actually having this conversation.

Now with that being said, I’m just going to skip over all of your charges of me erecting strawmen, along with your childishness in calling me “wisDUMB the philosopher” and go straight to this gem...

Earlier you accused me of not understanding what the word “rationality” means. You even went so far as to insist that it has nothing to do with logic and reason.

And when I provided you with its dictionary definition...
The Dictionary wrote: ra•tion•al•i•ty
noun
1. the quality of being based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
...a definition that clearly states that “reason and logic” are precisely what the word refers to, you offered this in return:
Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am
Is that so?

Please express the reasonable/logical/mathematical process by which you have concluded that death-by-murder is worse than death-by-malaria.
Now THAT is what a strawman argument actually looks like.

Logik (aka TimeSeeker), since you first arrived on this forum...

(approximately 26 weeks/6,000+ posts ago)

...you always impressed me as being a highly articulate person who is in possession of a wealth of statistical knowledge (all of which still holds true).

However, if you cannot be honest and humble enough to admit to such a trivial and obvious mistake, then not only can you not be trusted with your understanding of word meanings, but you are demonstrating that you have no integrity.

It’s pretty clear that neither of us is going to change the other’s mind, so even though it’s been a real hoot talking to you, I’m guessing we should probably stop now before this exchange devolves to the point where your propensity for mean-spiritedness and vulgar language takes us into areas that I have no stomach for.

So thanks for the stimulating conversation.
_______

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:43 pm

seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
And it’s too bad that you don’t understand the concept of what it means to be a hypocrite.
It roughly means the same thing as "being human". All humans are hypocrites. You included.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
You keep wanting to make this an argument about extinction when in truth it is an argument about your brazen hypocrisy.
No. I think you are trying to derailing the debate by putting together a character assassination. Because my hypocrisy cannot possibly be more important than humanity. Surely?

Lets see if my theory holds.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Let’s do a quick review:

You had it pointed out to you that Americans produce almost two and a half times more co2 pollution per capita than the Chinese per capita, to which you argued that China - as a whole - produces way more pollution than America.

The problem is that you failed to include the fact that China’s population is more than four times that of America.

In which case, it doesn’t take a lot of math skills to determine that if America’s population matched that of China’s population then we would be out-polluting them by leaps and bounds.
So far my hypothesis stands. See IF population matched China's population .... doesn't matter because in this game total emissions matter.
And we have the Pareto principle in which 80% of the effects are caused by 20% of the players.

And now i can pull my ace card and slap you in the face with a 10 inch black cock. I was never defending the USA in this one ;)
You assumed it. When in fact the USA is just as guilty. So is Australia.

Pick your 20%.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
The point is that your “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy completely strips you of any semblance of moral authority to pass judgment on China.
I never claimed to be a moral authority. You are the one who fell off his moral high horse when you tried to apply Kantian ethics to extinction events.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Furthermore, the very idea that destroying the world in all-out nuclear war in order to save the world from pollution is so ludicrous that I can barely believe that I am actually having this conversation.
Well, I am not having this conversation - you are. That's the straw-man you contrived.

You are not saving the world from anything. Certainly not saving the world from pollution. The world doesn't need saving - it has managed just fine without us for 14 billion years.

The man-ape needs saving. More often than not - the man-ape needs saving from its own stupidity.

And if the man-ape doesn't can't be convinced to educate itself, recognise the negative consequences of its actions and adjust its own behaviour, then the man-ape is a liability to those who CHOOSE to believe in the future.

The fact of the matter is - the choice is already made for you. It's extinction OR plan B.

Anything is better than extinction. Because the worst thing that can happen is.... extinction.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Now with that being said, I’m just going skip over all of your charges of me erecting strawmen, along with your childishness in calling me “wisDUMB the philosopher” and go straight to this gem...
It's a factual assertion. You are an idiot. Because you think dying by malaria is better than dying by murder.
Obviously, calling you an idiot gave you the escape hatch and strategy you desperately needed.

Because you couldn't actually justify WHY you prefer "death-by-malaria" to "death-by-murder" you are now trying to draw attention away from yourself and attacking my character again.

Maybe I was right ;) Good thing I called you an idiot. Otherwise you were totally cornered.

Now you can play the "you are so childish" card.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
Earlier you accused me of not understanding what the word “rationality” means. You even went so far as to insist that it has nothing to do with logic and reason.

And when I provided you with its dictionary definition...
Yet more evidence that you can't think for yourself. You appeal to dictionaries ;)

Rationality is achieving your goals. If the goal is to avoid extinction and your actions undermine your goal - you are not rational.

If your goal is to become financially secure and you keep living beyond your financial means. You are not rational.

Logik/reason is just a tool for achieving that which you set to achieve. But it seems to me you've set out to achieve - well. Nothing really.

You've set out to feel good about yourself.
seeds wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:25 pm
...a definition that clearly states that “reason and logic” are precisely what the word refers to, you offered this in return:
The problem with your approach is that you do not understand the limits of logic. You are ascribing it powers it does not have and in the process appealing to it as an authority on judgments/choice. It's not any of those things.

BUT if you believe that it is - it's even more evidence that you can't think for yourself.
Logik wrote:
Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:28 am
...you always impressed me as being a highly articulate person who is in possession of a wealth of statistical knowledge (all of which still holds true).

However, if you cannot be honest and humble enough to admit to such a trivial and obvious mistake, then not only can you not be trusted with your understanding of word meanings, but you are demonstrating that you have no integrity.
What do you mean.I am admitting it and you are having hard time processing it. I am admitting it now - YOU have made an error in reasoning. I am trying to correct you.

I have integrity. I would kill you if you endangered my family and I had no other way of stopping you from causing harm.
I would kill you if you endangered humanity and I had no other way of stopping you from causing harm.

That's more integrity than you ever knew what to do with.

The fact that you can't swallow that hard pill is simply because you are a sheep who can't think or act for himself.

Dubious
Posts: 2210
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Dubious » Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm

As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.

That being said, it is obvious that your left-brained filter that only sees in black and white statistics...

(as in “an extinction is an extinction” no matter what the reason)

...does not permit you to discern any difference between humans making honest (albeit foolish) mistakes as they attempt to thrive and procreate, and that of a deliberate decision to destroy the world.
My view exactly and even mentioned it once or twice many posts ago. While it's true that extinction is extinction it's seldom sudden and usually a process of less and less until there's nothing. To think that the cause is immaterial based on the outcome is nothing less than perverse.

Whether we exterminate other creatures (as we're definitely doing) or exterminating ourselves (which we may be in the process of doing), does not cancel the reason(s) for it happening. The worst thing by far in knowing what we've done is the time we have left in forcing us to acknowledge the irrevocable damage we've inflicted on ourselves and everything else alive. There's a big difference in dying guiltless due to an act of god and allowing all warnings to proceed unheeded to its irrevocable conclusion.

...and that's when most of the world's population, or what's left, is going to pray to god for a saving miracle. Lots of luck with that! If there were a god, why would it even bother!

seeds
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by seeds » Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:01 am

seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm

As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.

That being said, it is obvious that your left-brained filter that only sees in black and white statistics...

(as in “an extinction is an extinction” no matter what the reason)

...does not permit you to discern any difference between humans making honest (albeit foolish) mistakes as they attempt to thrive and procreate, and that of a deliberate decision to destroy the world.
Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 am
My view exactly and even mentioned it once or twice many posts ago. While it's true that extinction is extinction it's seldom sudden and usually a process of less and less until there's nothing. To think that the cause is immaterial based on the outcome is nothing less than perverse.

Whether we exterminate other creatures (as we're definitely doing) or exterminating ourselves (which we may be in the process of doing), does not cancel the reason(s) for it happening...
Finally, an adult to talk to.

If you have been following my bizarre conversation with “Logik,” you will have noticed that he has no problem with entering into an all-out global nuclear war as a solution to China’s co2 emissions issues (I can’t believe I actually had to type that sentence).

How do you feel about that, Dubious?
_______

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:06 am

seeds wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:01 am
seeds wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:00 pm

As I have already pointed out, one of the possible extinctions being discussed could come about as an unfortunate by-product of humans trying to improve their living conditions...

...while the other is a result of the worst (unforgivable) decision that humans could possibly make.

That being said, it is obvious that your left-brained filter that only sees in black and white statistics...

(as in “an extinction is an extinction” no matter what the reason)

...does not permit you to discern any difference between humans making honest (albeit foolish) mistakes as they attempt to thrive and procreate, and that of a deliberate decision to destroy the world.
Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 am
My view exactly and even mentioned it once or twice many posts ago. While it's true that extinction is extinction it's seldom sudden and usually a process of less and less until there's nothing. To think that the cause is immaterial based on the outcome is nothing less than perverse.

Whether we exterminate other creatures (as we're definitely doing) or exterminating ourselves (which we may be in the process of doing), does not cancel the reason(s) for it happening...
Finally, an adult to talk to.

If you have been following my bizarre conversation with “Logik,” you will have noticed that he has no problem with entering into an all-out global nuclear war as a solution to China’s co2 emissions issues (I can’t believe I actually had to type that sentence).

How do you feel about that, Dubious?
_______
You two are a birds of a feather.

And you continue to strawman me with your bullshit. Your argument boils down to this:
meme.jpg
meme.jpg (41.15 KiB) Viewed 820 times
You have made it perfectly clear that given those options you would choose extinction (100% certain death) over war (95% certain death)

There is no other way to say this to you. You are misanthropic!

You "love humanity" so much that you would let it go extinct because your "intentions are pure".

That is how fucked up Kantian ethics/morality are. It leads to virtue-signaling rather than decisive action like you two are busy doing right now.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:55 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 am
My view exactly and even mentioned it once or twice many posts ago. While it's true that extinction is extinction it's seldom sudden and usually a process of less and less until there's nothing.
You don't know the first thing about systems engineering. Extinction is not sudden - it's certain. The only thing we have control over is when it happens.
It took the dinosaurs 180 million years to meet their demise. It wasn't a sudden event, but it was very surprising to all dinosaurs when it finally happened.

I don't know if any of these concepts even feature in your episteme:
1. Point of no return ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_of_no_return )
2. Positive feedback loops have rapid, exponential effects. When things go bad, they get worse exponentially faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_feedback
2.1 Climate change feedback loops: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback

And so you fail to realise that you are in a race with time. If the Extinction Event Horizon is 500 years away, but any U-turn strategy will only yield a return on investment in 800 years, then we are already extinct and you don't even know it. Unless we get off this planet in 499 years or less.
Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:58 am
To think that the cause is immaterial based on the outcome is nothing less than perverse.
No. The perversion is to think that the cause of the problem matters more than the solution.

How we got here. Who did it. Why they did it. Why couldn't we prevent it? None of that matters. That's a stupid blame game - too late for that shit when you have no options left.

When you cross the PONR - all your "reason" and "logic" is worth noting. The only question left is: And what happens now?

You've lost control. Enjoy the rest of this (short) ride...

Dubious
Posts: 2210
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Dubious » Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:44 pm

seeds wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:01 am
If you have been following my bizarre conversation with “Logik,” you will have noticed that he has no problem with entering into an all-out global nuclear war as a solution to China’s co2 emissions issues (I can’t believe I actually had to type that sentence).

How do you feel about that, Dubious?
_______
That's simple! Once it's realized that your talking to one stupid, obnoxious, insulting idiot, stop communicating. There are so many of these all-knowing imbeciles around who won't even attempt to understand what you're saying ever ready to immediately fire off Ad hominems upon any disagreement.

They know and you don't know anything is their conclusion. Those who regard their opinion as some kind of divine right compared to yours makes discussion impossible and a self-inflicted insult if continued. Just allow the conversation, when it ceases to be one, to cross-over into the digital void.

In short, fuck 'em! They aren't worth it so don't strain yourself trying to put more effort into it. You'll only aggravate them more! It took me way too long to learn this lesson myself.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:09 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 7:17 am
You don't understand statistics. You are using a relativistic tool (per-capita numbers) and forgetting about the absolutist aspect (total quantities)
When talking about absolute quantities China is the biggest culprit: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/20 ... 2c2ea2628c

China Emits More Carbon Dioxide Than The U.S. and EU Combined

This is where you need to try another one of those "don't feign rationality" backpedaling attempts to divert from the fact that you don't have a clue how to use statistics and you display faux-condescension to make up for your own inadequacies by referring me to Google again.
Nonetheless, citizens of the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia, in aggregate emit more than double the amount of co2 that their counterparts in China do. So if you kill all those people then you only have to kill half as many Chinese to win. So find and kill a Canadian today to do your bit.

The great thing is, if you change your mind later and get religion, you have the moral framework already in place to join ISIS, you just have to switch out some variables such as global warming for others such as word of God. It's all good because you already did the heavy lifting by developing a belief system to justify terroristic murder on a grand scale.

Don't enjoy religion? Get communism instead, you've already laid out the ethical roadmap for Pol Pot, just replace the Chinese with the bourgeoisie. Or just blame an international cabal of Jews for stuff, and then we can Godwin this thread.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:20 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:09 pm
Nonetheless, citizens of the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia, in aggregate emit more than double the amount of co2 that their counterparts in China do.
In this game aggregates don't really matter. Total emissions do.

Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and South Korea are the worst offender on aggregate. Combined they still emit 10 times less CO2 and China+USA.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... f-co2.html
Last edited by Logik on Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:21 pm

Dubious wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 9:44 pm
seeds wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:01 am
If you have been following my bizarre conversation with “Logik,” you will have noticed that he has no problem with entering into an all-out global nuclear war as a solution to China’s co2 emissions issues (I can’t believe I actually had to type that sentence).

How do you feel about that, Dubious?
_______
That's simple! Once it's realized that your talking to one stupid, obnoxious, insulting idiot, stop communicating. There are so many of these all-knowing imbeciles around who won't even attempt to understand what you're saying ever ready to immediately fire off Ad hominems upon any disagreement.

They know and you don't know anything is their conclusion. Those who regard their opinion as some kind of divine right compared to yours makes discussion impossible and a self-inflicted insult if continued. Just allow the conversation, when it ceases to be one, to cross-over into the digital void.

In short, fuck 'em! They aren't worth it so don't strain yourself trying to put more effort into it. You'll only aggravate them more! It took me way too long to learn this lesson myself.
You seem to be having much difficulty climbing onto a dead moral high horse.

Rather than deflecting from the point by debating my charming personality go ahead and justify why extinction is moral, but war aimed at preventing extinction isn't.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:25 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:20 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:09 pm
Nonetheless, citizens of the USA, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia, in aggregate emit more than double the amount of co2 that their counterparts in China do.
In this game aggregates don't really matter. Total emissions do.

Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and South Korea are the worst offender on aggregate. Combined they still emit 10 times less CO2 and China+USA.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/s ... f-co2.html
Yet it is true that if you wipe America off the map, you only have to wipe half of China off to gain roughly the same ecological advantage as you would from wiping out all of China. This comes with a substantial saving in wasted lives. The total emissions after the game are the same. Your choice of target was arbitrary.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:28 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:25 pm
Yet it is true that if you wipe America off the map, you only have to wipe half of China off to gain roughly the same ecological advantage as you would from wiping out all of China. This comes with a substantial saving in wasted lives. The total emissions after the game are the same. Your choice of target was arbitrary.
Going down the list till it adds up to 80.

There may be a better way to do it. Target CO2-dense hotspots, but that kinda spells China again.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:30 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:28 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:25 pm
Yet it is true that if you wipe America off the map, you only have to wipe half of China off to gain roughly the same ecological advantage as you would from wiping out all of China. This comes with a substantial saving in wasted lives. The total emissions after the game are the same. Your choice of target was arbitrary.
Going down the list till it adds up to 80.

There may be a better way to do it. Target CO2 hotspots...
Why are we arbitrarily counting the amount of co2 that China emits as the bad portion and everyone else's minus theirs is ok?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: These are major assumptions that make sense

Post by Logik » Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:33 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Mon Apr 01, 2019 10:30 pm
Why are we arbitrarily counting the amount of co2 that China emits as the bad portion and everyone else's minus theirs is ok?
CO2 emission density + principle of least effort.

Minimum effort - maximum desired effect.

You could totally wipe out Australia, Canada, South Korea and Saudi Arabia first. Not even going to move the needle by 10%.

Bang for your buck and all that...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests