[FrustratedMonky]

I asked GPT, and he said you were right.

"

Ah, the age-old debate of logic versus self-interest. Sure, logic is about connecting the dots with premises and conclusions, but let's not kid ourselves—most of our decisions are driven by what we want.

So, if someone wants warm weather and cheap housing, and Phoenix fits the bill, then it's a no-brainer.

1. *Premise:* "I want warm weather and cheap housing."

2. *Premise:* "Phoenix offers warm weather and cheap housing."

3. *Conclusion:* "I should move to Phoenix."

Boom. Logical and self-interested. Just because it's driven by personal desire doesn't make it illogical. It's logic with a dash of "I know what I like." So yeah, moving to Phoenix makes perfect sense if that's what floats your boat.

"

You can make any premises you want to satisfy your goals. So just do what you want. Don't need to kid yourself that it was logical.

[dventimi]

I don't have to kid myself that it's logical because I know it's logical. That's cold comfort, however, because we're not going to create a more just future by winning a debate, especially against individuals. "Logical" is no more a conversation-ending mic-drop than "illogical" is. If we want a more just future with a more environmentally-sane economy, we'll have to threaten policymakers to change policy. No amount of moral grandstanding with individuals is going to help matters.

[FrustratedMonky]

Can't argue with that.

Guess I was going down the road that an environmentally-sane economy would need 'logic', it would be more 'logical', that it would be more correct versus the current system that seems 'illogical'. Thus we could use logic to argue for change.

This argument is showing that all sides could use 'logic' to reach their own desired conclusion, so logic is not really the method of change.

The whole problem of "You can't use logic to dissuade someone who didn't use logic to reach their viewpoint in the first place".

This argument has demonstrated that 'logic' can be more flexible when used by humans. Having a better environment for he future isn't necessarily better just by using 'logic'. Thus we can't use logic to argue for better policy. Thus, as you said, we need to fall back on different methods to 'threaten policymakers to change policy'.

[FrustratedMonky]

I can't help but think that if we give up on logic, that it is slippery slope. Who is every really ever 'correct'.

I think there is only missing variables. The logic changes based on adding new/updated premises.

Like others in this thread have mentioned, Phoenix actually does have water, that it is the Alfalfa agriculture business that is using 70% of the water (i'm taking their numbers).

So, if we add in this new information like "it is really the agriculture business", then the question that logic leads to is more "can we modify that business" or "does Alfalfa really needed to be grown in this area, can it be moved".

So the logic for the humans becomes more like

1. A lot of people want to live here because of the sunny weather.

2. The water supply is now over-extended

3. The main users of water is the Alfalfa industry, not the new humans moving to the area.

4. Given the humans are the government (democracy), and they choose to live here, can they work towards changing the industry in such a way to accommodate both?

Of course, farmers have rights too. And we get into government authority, who is the 'arbiter' in conflicts. Especially out west where different states might dam up rivers and starve downstream states, then it goes to Federal Gov. But what if we dam up water going to Mexico, then it is inter-Nation conflict, and then what the UN or war. And then we start to get to point about, how really, humans are going to fight over resources and the planet is doomed.

[dventimi]

We don't have to give up on logic. Just use it to point out hypocrisy. Extra points if you use it to needle politicians, policymakers, and pundits as opposed to ordinary voters.