The case for rational alarm
I have several long, unfinished essays sitting on my harddrive about why I 'choose' to believe the doomsayers (see footnote) on the issue of climate change. Turns out I needn't have bothered to put down so many words, because this guy here does a much better (and probably more entertaining) job of it - and does so in a youtube vid!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
This is pretty much exactly how my own decision making process went on this issue. Minus the hat. *g* It's a great vid to forward to skeptical and/or confused friends & relations - all those people who are reluctant to trust instances like 'the media', 'science/scientists', 'environmentalists', and 'politicians' - because it neatly cuts through all the confusion and political resentment to the central logical argument that - wonder of wonders! - doesn't actually require any sort of trust or belief, or even allegiance to a particular political cause.
***
Footnote: "doomsayers" in this context means "people who say we are likely to face a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, ranging from the collapse of civilisation to the possibility of extinction of oxygen-dependent life on Earth, in the fairly near future, unless we take the truly radical action of changing our entire culture, fast".
Historically speaking, doomsayers have nearly always been wrong, and it is therefore a culturally well-established, and for the most part a very *reasonable* response to dismiss with a laugh anyone who makes such extreme statements. However, it is also, usually, a good idea to look at who it is that makes the statement before you laugh, and to try to determine, as the guy from the video puts it, "what's the worst that could happen" if they're right...
I like this video so much because it makes it crystal clear that in this particular case, taking the doomsayers seriously is a very *sensible* choice. I have the same reflexes as everybody else (I guess) to dismiss extreme claims of looming catastrophe as hysterical, and have occasional flashes of strong doubt, so it's good to see someone else laying out the case for rational alarm. *g*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
This is pretty much exactly how my own decision making process went on this issue. Minus the hat. *g* It's a great vid to forward to skeptical and/or confused friends & relations - all those people who are reluctant to trust instances like 'the media', 'science/scientists', 'environmentalists', and 'politicians' - because it neatly cuts through all the confusion and political resentment to the central logical argument that - wonder of wonders! - doesn't actually require any sort of trust or belief, or even allegiance to a particular political cause.
***
Footnote: "doomsayers" in this context means "people who say we are likely to face a catastrophe of apocalyptic proportions, ranging from the collapse of civilisation to the possibility of extinction of oxygen-dependent life on Earth, in the fairly near future, unless we take the truly radical action of changing our entire culture, fast".
Historically speaking, doomsayers have nearly always been wrong, and it is therefore a culturally well-established, and for the most part a very *reasonable* response to dismiss with a laugh anyone who makes such extreme statements. However, it is also, usually, a good idea to look at who it is that makes the statement before you laugh, and to try to determine, as the guy from the video puts it, "what's the worst that could happen" if they're right...
I like this video so much because it makes it crystal clear that in this particular case, taking the doomsayers seriously is a very *sensible* choice. I have the same reflexes as everybody else (I guess) to dismiss extreme claims of looming catastrophe as hysterical, and have occasional flashes of strong doubt, so it's good to see someone else laying out the case for rational alarm. *g*