Friday, January 15, 2010

Question.

Supposing global warming was an incontestable, proveable fact, and various cities, coastal lowlands and low-lying islands would indeed be swamped within a matter of years ...

... why not throw all our efforts into adaptive technologies to help us deal with the coming changes, instead of trying to stop it by grinding the developed world to a screeching halt? If there's a barrier ahead that you have to get through, doesn't it make more sense to pour on the gas than to stomp the brake?

I have to wonder about people who react to change (at any level) with "AUGH NO IT HAS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW FOREVER!" Grow up, weenies. Change is what makes us different from the rocks.

4 comments:

Old Grouch said...

Why not throw all our efforts into adaptive technologies to help us deal with the coming changes, instead of trying to stop it by grinding the developed world to a screeching halt?

Because the object IS to "grind the developed world to a screeching halt," either directly or by transferring cash and resources to third-world kleptocrats.

Glob^H^H^H^H climate change is just the excuse.

Joanna said...

I think it's also akin to the child who comes to you with a splinter, then howls like they're being murdered when you go after it with the tweezers -- not because it hurts, mind you, but because they think they'll get more attention that way.

Nathan said...

Read Bjørn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. He makes pretty much the same argument.

Marja said...

Hear, hear!