One thing I neglected to mention in my previous post is the concept I have coined "means to end thinking". I will discuss this as a specific topic in more detail in a future post, but for now my point is that while those peddling the global warming hysteria may indeed mean well, I believe they see no problem with inflating the issue because the means, taking sweeping actions in all haste to become carbon neutral, justifies the end, which is saving the planet. In other words, it doesn't matter what means you use to get to some well-intentioned goal, what matters is the end goal. I believe this dangerous thinking, because there is the presumption that even if the case may be grossly overstated yet the end result is achieved, then we're all better off regardless. The problem with this thinking is the dramatic impact such means may have on the global economy. Stifling economic growth through byzantine regulations will certainly have its own unintended consequences, and will be a harsh reality imposed on real people in the present based on a virtual future predicted by a computer model. Something does not compute here.
share on: facebook
Posts
Gilson on philosophy and its history
3 days ago
