DancingBear

The Little Ice Age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Causes You can find links to the Medieval Warming Period from there. History describing how we know CO2 raises the temperature: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas This Swedish Chemist calculated the effects of Carbon Dioxide near the end of the 19th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect I would really rather discuss solutions to this rather than whether or not the science is accurate. In my class, the science isn't up for debate. I need the class to graduate, so I'm trying to not rock the boat too much.

I'm no scientist, so I can't second guess what scientists say. If a scientist says he ran computer simulations mapping the introduction of carbon into the atmosphere over time, I can't sit there and wonder whether he took this or that fact into consideration; it's a waste of my time. Furthermore, why so many scientist would be willing to risk their careers by advocating something that is entirely false is beyond me. Even if they were getting funding by certain environmental interest groups, it seems strange to waste all that time and money to convince people that something is true when it's not, knowing that if it is proven to be false, your career would be finished. That said, AGW advocates do offer proof. Satellites measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Weather stations around the world measure temperature. The point of this post was, given that AGW is occurring, what possible solutions are there? Many people think government has a responsibility to protect people from environmental disasters. Others think that the problem can be handled without the government. I would like to see the free market produce innovative technology to either prevent or adapt to any such disaster, so these are the responses I'm most interested in hearing about. However, if you have a strong argument that the government has a legitimate role to play, by all means post your ideas.

I realize I'm late to the party. Sorry. Will someone tell me where the laws of physics end and where human free-will begins? When does the universe cease to be particles reacting to each other, and become humans deciding how to behave? Even if a Cherokee decides to feed a certain wolf, he will do so because 1. his father told him the story and 2. because of other experiences he has had that lead him to believe that one wolf is better than the other. If a depressed or sexually abused person seeks treatment it is because 1. the person has been made aware of treatment and 2. has been convinced through experience that treatment is effective. Consider that should depression not reach a significant level of uncomfortableness, then someone may not be motivated enough to receive treatment. Right now, I can think of no way that the multitudinous events that make up the universe do not cause me to "choose" a particular meal for lunch. (I wouldn't use that analogy if I hadn't just eaten). Where do the causes stop and the effects of free will begin? How does causality not extend to human beings decision-making processes?

Scientists shouldn't be aligning themselves with anything other than the truth. The fact that many living organisms emit CO2 as a by-product doesn't change the issue. The fundamental question is whether increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have significant effects on the climate. Whether this CO2 comes from your exhalations or the tailpipe of your car is irrelevant. It's entirely possible that the mere presence of over 6 billion humans, breathing constantly, has an effect on the environment. (I wonder how long it takes 6 billion people to cycle through the entire atmosphere with breathing?). The problem is, nobody wants to reduce population (at least not by force), so the other alternative is to reduce the other "drivers", i.e. carbon emissions. Also, although plants do absorb CO2 and emit oxygen, the CO2 they have stored is released when they die (or are harvested). Furthermore, without replacing the plants, the net environmental ability to absorb CO2 is reduced. I'm more interested in what to do about this problem if it is indeed true. If someone would like to propose an alternative problem which addresses the same issue (defining boundaries of ones actions, i.e. when does my shit taint your food?), feel free to do so. The climate debate raises a question which I find more philosophically stimulating than the question of whether climate change is actually happening.

Ico rationally defined "intrinsic" and "value" and determined the two words created an oxymoron. To say that the words mean something different to you is quite arbitrary and irrational. Gold is valuable because its rare. You can't just go find it in the streets. You said "intrinsic value" doesn't need context but then you set up a scenario in which you claim a bottle of water is more intrinsically valuable than it otherwise would have been. A note on the value of life. Without life, there is nothing (for me at least, and that's all that matters).

The principle here is to be honest. If you sincerely plan on returning, then it is your right to exercise options in your contract. If you plan on quitting after your maternity leave, it is unethical to lead your employer on until your maternity leave ends. They will eventually need to hire someone if you do quit, so leading your employer to believe you will return when in fact you will not for the duration of your leave is unethical. Consider being honest with your employer that you may not return after your leave. If you do not expect to be fired after revealing this, it would be very beneficial to have a mutual understanding to ensure positive relations in the future with this employer. Finally, if the contract doesn't say you can't do it, then you can do it. If it doesn't say you have to do it, then you don't have to do it. Have a lawyer read the contract.

Any comments on the attached diagram in the original post?

Thanks for the reply. If you don't want to assume that global warming is happening, there is another way to approach the same fundamental issue. If I begin building a farm around the same time and in the same area that someone begins building a factory, and during the growing season waste from the factory leaks into the ground and air and kills my crops, do I have a right to sue the factory owner? If I could sue the factory owner, wouldn't that be infringing upon his right to own a factory and use it how he likes? If I could NOT sue the factory owner, isn't that infringing on my right to own my property and not have it be interfered with against my will? I don't think it's possible to prevent the diffusion of chemicals in the environment. For example, when toxins are leaked into the ocean and end up in the fish we eat. Or when Mexico City produces smog, which is carried through the air and causes acid rain in the Southeast U.S. Don't be unreasonable and assume that pollution has no significant effect on the environment. Look at the BP oil spill. Their accident caused financial problems for many fishing companies in the Gulf of Mexico. If I throw trash on your lawn, I'm at fault and should be punished. If I throw trash in the ocean, no one will directly be affected, but it will probably kill a fish or two, which would continue to affect the ecosystem that fish belonged to and any business that profited from harvesting any animals in that ecosystem. So should the businesses be able to sue me although they don't own the water or the fish they harvest? I think the problem reduces to the lack of ownership of certain environmental realms like the sky and ocean and water in general. Could such ownership be realized and if so, how would their borders be demarcated? Thanks in advance for your objective input.

I disagree. A life of endless suffering is better than no life at all. The intrinsic value of life is experience (and consciousness), as opposed to the non-experience of death.

Thanks for the answer Dante. Very wise and objective. To develop the topic further: again, assuming that climate change is occurring, what is the proper method of dealing with it? Should the government prevent people from buying cars, or prevent people from selling them? Should the government subsidize alternative energy? Should I feel personally guilty and bike to the recycling center everyday? I would like to know, assuming that the science and/or climate itself proves indisputably to be changing, what do we do about it? I don't think the government has the right to prevent anyone from doing anything other than harming others directly, but perhaps someone would like to make an opposing argument. Furthermore, I don't think most people would do ANYTHING about it. I think most people in America live comfortably and would be reluctant to give up that short-term comfort for long-term comfort and possibly even survival. So again, what's the role of government here? How could climate change be handled without interference on individual rights?

If person A shoots person B, person A deserves to go to prison and possibly face capital punishment. If person A defecates on person B's lawn, person A still deserves to be punished. But what if person A is a corporation which cuts down trees to make paper, which reduces the environment's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which subsequently accumulates, preventing radiation from reflecting off the Earth into space, thereby warming the environment and leading to unpredictable and catastrophic weather patterns? What if these weather patterns destroy person B's house? Is this person A's fault and should the government punish him or better yet, preemptively regulate him? My point and main concern is that, assuming climate change is happening, which I do believe is happening, is there a blame to be placed and is anyone responsible for correcting it? Does anyone deserve to be legally regulated to prevent the situation from escalating? In other words, what is the proper role of government here and how does the situation affect individual rights? I have included as an attachment a capture from an article I was reading by a university professor with a diagram claiming to illustrate how pollution leading to global warming is humans harming humans. Snapshot 2011-01-20 01-42-32.tiff

Ok thanks. I think those last two posts really cleared up the issue at hand. Although I'm poorly informed on the actual science of genetics and skeptical of the breadth and depth of their role in human development, that explains how people could have different preferences. Thanks!

So humans are born with a nature or personality. Can anyone direct me to any work by Ayn Rand that explains this or otherwise explain it themselves? I think I read somewhere Rand saying that humans are born without knowing anything and I took this to mean that natures are developed.

So unlike pride, productiveness, and rationality, which are values logically chosen, ones career or choice of beverage is illogical, or at least, not logical. These latter choices can be the result of whims or subjective desires or the nature of the choser. Is this the case?

I agree. The fact that we were born was our parents decision, not ours. So that's where I'll draw the line: it's luck if you don't control the variable that works in your favor. Control can mean either directly controlling something or indirectly as in understand the probabilities of the variable and taking advantage of that knowledge. I think the hard thing to distinguish is where control ends though. Someone mentioned winning the lottery as an example of luck. I know the change is insignificant, but the more tickets you buy the higher your probability of winning becomes. And to prevent a meteor from striking your house, move into a cave. What I'm trying to say is that although control can be exerted over a wide berth, it's unfeasible to use that effort when the probabilities are so low for certain events occurring. Therefore, because an average person wouldn't waste energy preventing or enhancing extremely low probabilities, it can be considered luck when the unlikely event occurs.

I'm specifically thinking of differing values as they relate to choosing a career. For example, while one man may choose to be a composer of music, another chooses to practice the science of physics. Two very different choices, yet I think Ayn Rand would argue that they are equally viable. How does this work in Objectivism? If there is a right and a wrong, then why don't people all practice physics and philosophy? Everything else seems extraneous to reality. A good point was made with the different flavor drink example. Yes, it's quite common to prefer different flavors than others, but is there not a RIGHT choice? In other words, wouldn't one flavor be more in concert with a rational hierarchy of values, however negligible?

How can equally rational people have different hierarchies of values?

I'm having trouble admitting that I should have been more driven during my childhood, more questioning than I was poked fun at for being, and respected the bestsellers lists that, apparently, listed "Atlas Shrugged" alongside the other garbage that's been popular in my lifetime. Unfortunately, there are things I could have done that would have lead me to Ayn Rand sooner. I can only be proud that I was interested in philosophy more than anyone I knew that my uncle noticed and finally mentioned "Atlas Shrugged". The consensus seems to be that luck exists, although not as some mystical force. Since I doubt anyone on these boards is willing to argue that luck is a mystical force, will someone argue that it doesn't exist at all? But first, consider the fact that a child born to intelligent parents immediately has an advantage over a child born to unintelligent parents which is best described as luck.

The Merriam-Webster definition of 'lucky': "1 : having good luck 2 : happening by chance : fortuitous 3 : producing or resulting in good by chance : favorable 4 : seeming to bring good luck" The Merriam-Webster definition of 'luck': "1a : a force that brings good fortune or adversity 1b : the events or circumstances that operate for or against an individual 2 : favoring chance; also : success <had great luck growing orchids> " I recently complimented someone as being lucky for having discovered Objectivism at a young age. I was surprised, however, when they told me that this was an insult. This lead me to think deeply about the nature of luck. In my experience, I try as hard as I can to achieve success so when I do, I am proud of myself. There are times, however, when unpredictable circumstances cause what I would call 'bad luck'. For example, if I were driving to an appointment and there had been a car accident which caused traffic causing me to be late, this is bad luck. So when someone tells me that it wasn't luck that lead them to discover Objectivism early in life, then they must be wrong. I can't think of what I might have done wrong to delay my discovery of Objectivism until my early twenties, so what could they have done right that would have lead to their early success? I am particularly interested in a discussion about whether luck exists. I think some people will say absolutely not. Others that say it does may differ in degree. I myself agree with the second and third definitions of 'lucky' and the 1b definition of 'luck'. I got the definitions from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

So if poor decision-making is the true culprit, then labels like alcoholism are unnecessary and perhaps detrimental due to the fact that they distract the the user and people trying to help him from the true cause. Instead of relating addiction to eating, which is a survival issue, perhaps its better to say it's like eating junk food, watching too much television, or staying up too late. These are all easy things to change, but for someone without the necessary incentive, like a job or obvious health issues, the change is less likely. Everything affects your mind through reward and punishment, some things more intensely than others, but the concept of routine and habit are similar throughout. I'm specifically concerned about the labels addict and alcoholic and how they are permanent. I understand that if someone has been making bad decisions for a period of time, labeling them as an addict is a way to describe their poor decision-making. However, assuming the addict cleans himself up and begins making good decisions again, shouldn't he deserve to no longer be call an addict? In reality, he no longer is, but according to society, he deserves to be handled with care for the rest of his life.