Scott Mayers » August 7th, 2019, 9:48 am wrote:It is LOGICAL THAT humans can affect the environment. To the conservative who sees those 'scientists' putting forward 'science' that proves we have ANY affect, is merely an obvious insult because the only rationale for putting money INTO science on this is itself POLITICAL. The attempt of supporting a popular support of the science regarding climate change is the problem. This is because it presumes that the welfare of the majority (now and into the future) have meaning when it doesn't attend to the specific virtue of that 'majority'. If you happen to have no children, for instance, WHY should it matter that you sacrifice your comfort today for the sake of some other people (or equally, any other species) when or should that same 'majority' today could care less about you specifically?
I personally think that permitting unrestricted population growth based upon the whims of particular people's choices is itself something we need to stop because this affects the welfare of the whole. I could set up studies to show how human birthing contributes to global warming. In fact, obviously if we DO have an impact in today's climate science with certainty, then MORE people living to abuse this Earth should suggest that we make laws BASED ON THIS SCIENCE to restrict people's independent rights to have children.
If we had many studies done to point out how more human density affects the environment AND if there was extensive such studies by some particular INTERESTS, would this not suggest to you that the purpose of these interests is suspect? I mean, given the logic suffices with LESS, any extended efforts appears itself to be acting to influence the stupidity of the crowds in disrespect of their intellect.
If it is any consolation. In the 1950s and 1960s, right-wing conservative thinktanks figured out the impacts of industry on the environment. Those thinktanks then concluded that the only solution to the problem was massive government intervention in the economy. They wrote these conclusions and then distributed the dossiers among their private circles.
Decades later, younger right-wing think-tankers found these things, and coordinated an effort to bury and discredit the science of industrial effects on climate. The conclusions
struck so deep at their core beliefs that they had to get rid of it.
It is LOGICAL THAT humans can affect the environment.
Speaking of logic, your use of capitalized words has no logical scheme. ;)