The White Board Man -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

It's Happy Fun Ball!

aka Killed in First Minute

50 XP

20th October 2005

0 Uploads

1,297 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

He makes a pretty good argument here. Anyone see a flaw in his logic?




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Seen it.

I agree with him. The price of failure to act is too high.




Real-BadSeed

Science experiment

50 XP

5th December 2004

0 Uploads

3,799 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Thats the reasoning ive always had on the issue. The risk of doing nothing, far outweighs the risk of acting when it wasnt needed. Money can be replaced, the planet cannot...




IcarianVX

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

29th August 2005

0 Uploads

121 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

Well, there is the flaw that throwing money and human made remedies will right the situation. Even if we threw all of the money in the world at the problem, it could still be the "bottom B" column grid. If it truly is NOT caused by humans then how the f**k could we stop it?

I agree that we should try to stop it anyway, but there is the flaw. You could still do all that and it will happen anyway.




Coca-Cola

[130.Pz.]A.Aussen

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

2,816 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

Were you having fun at work KIFM?:p




The Last Unknown Soldier

Never mess with a drunken Kiwi

50 XP

2nd January 2007

0 Uploads

796 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

your not exactly getting the point, his question is what would be the better choice, be proactive and face economic depression if it aint gonna happen (Worst Case Scenario) or no act at all and live in a world of desparity and war? better to spend money on something that isnt going to happen than get caught w/ our pants down




A_tree

Worse things happen at sea.

50 XP

7th January 2006

0 Uploads

479 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

IcarianVX;3984821Well, there is the flaw that throwing money and human made remedies will right the situation. Even if we threw all of the money in the world at the problem, it could still be the "bottom B" column grid. If it truly is NOT caused by humans then how the f**k could we stop it?

I agree that we should try to stop it anyway, but there is the flaw. You could still do all that and it will happen anyway.

Naturally it wouldn't get apocalypticly hot, but if man made global warming is true, then global temperatures would go up and up and up, and never come down again.




Flyboy1942

A.K.A. Ghanrage

50 XP

29th January 2005

0 Uploads

1,683 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

First, I'd like to say that his argument for action is the best Ive seen or heard so far.

Now, my main issue with it is this: The white board argument is saying that the only option we have is to open our pockets and bend over.

The "extremes" are really blowing the argument out of proportion, and giving that "end of the world" scenario too much free reign.

If you were to make a bigger grid with a wide range of possibilities instead of just true and false ultimatums (many shades of grey), you will notice that no matter what, with column "A" someone is making tons of money, someone is getting tons more control over economies/other companies (breeding ground for corruption anyone?), and the effects will be meaningless for half(?) of the outcomes anyways.

It's a choice between getting screwed for sure by some greedy bastards (I'd rather not have that), or possibly getting screwed by mother nature (like you could really stop that!).

Might as well start a panic about the possibility of meteorites striking earth, massive super volcanoes erupting, unstoppable pandemics, solar flares wiping out half the world's power grid, 10.0+ earthquakes...just watch discovery channel- they'll find something to scare you with.

Why does this get extra special attention? Do you think we really have any say in our long term futures if the universe decides to see what happens when we're squished? Seems to me that jumping to a conclusion like this now is just what the aforementioned "greedy bastards" want.

It always comes down to money.

The reason the debate is so vehement over the "true" or "false" question is that there are people who still believe in the scientific method, and/or just don't want a nanny state teeming with corruption, getting worse very time someone asks for money to "create an anti-earthquake subterranean vibration relay system."

The actions we take are still up for debate.




Komrad_B

Score Monkey

45,850 XP

2nd September 2004

0 Uploads

4,500 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

IcarianVX;3984821Well, there is the flaw that throwing money and human made remedies will right the situation. Even if we threw all of the money in the world at the problem, it could still be the "bottom B" column grid. If it truly is NOT caused by humans then how the f**k could we stop it?

I agree that we should try to stop it anyway, but there is the flaw. You could still do all that and it will happen anyway.

It seriously doesn't matter. Lets say we spend lots of money and make sacrifices to reduce pollution, and global warming continues anyways, then the result will be the same (whatever money we would have lost wouldn't have any value then). Besides, if the current global warming was not caused by humans it would be slower (as with all climactic cycles, which happened over large time periods). In this case the only thing we lose is money, and the guy mentioned this possibility.

And if we reduce pollution without the need to, we will do mankind a favor by upgrading the quality of life and possibly finding healthy alternatives for oil, which is going to be in shortage soon enough (another problem solved).

The "extremes" are really blowing the argument out of proportion, and giving that "end of the world" scenario too much free reign.

You are right, but for some people even thinking about allowing the state to get near economical matter is akin to living in a stalinist country. The possibility of economic depression worst than the Great Depression because of pro-environment policies is just as ridiculous, if not more, than the possibilities the apocalyptic statements he gave, but for some current economical matter are the most important. Of course I agree the answer is in the gray area somewhere, but what he said is the "worst" that could happen depending of our choices. Of course "end of the world" is worst than "economic depression", thats part of the reasoning, and both could happen.




IcarianVX

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

29th August 2005

0 Uploads

121 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago

Apparently people can watch him for 9 plus minutes but can't read my last sentence.

The "flaw" in his theory is that we can do anything about it. KIFM asked for a flaw. I gave it. I am not saying that we shouldn't at least try. What I am saying is that we *could* try and it won't do a damn bit of good. Where is that on his list? He didn't consider it. Hence, the flaw in the theory.




  • 1
  • 2