|
|
|
|
|
|
by Frozenlock
4580 days ago
|
|
|
I never said any of those were implausible; only that somehow, they were all taken for granted in the current discussion. Position 1: "We would be better off with pipelines..." Position 2: "No! (assumptions 1 ---> 2 ----> 3 ---> 3 ---> 4) fossil fuel is bad, so we shouldn't build a more expansive fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it costs some human lives." Excuse me, but that's a pretty big quantum leap in argumentation. |
|
|
That's because, as best as we know today, it's what's actually happening. This doesn't mean Position 2 is reasonable. We're already in the process of moving away from oil, but at the same time it's clear that we're going to be needing it for a long time to come. Of course it makes sense to put an infrastructure for that in place.
As far as environmental aspects are concerned, it's not about dialing back the hand of time to the agrarian age just to minimize our impact. It's about managing our impact sensibly and counteracting it where it makes sense.
> Excuse me, but that's a pretty big quantum leap in argumentation.
Well, the way those points were presented is pretty loaded. I think the big leap comes instead right between "fossil fuel is bad" and "so we shouldn't build a more expansive fossil fuel infrastructure, even if it costs some human lives", that's where the non-sequitur happens.
The reason why "fossil fuel is bad" holds true is that we're doing it on such a massive scale that it actually changes our environment in a way that is detrimental to our future. And I'm a technocrat saying this, not what you might call a tree hugger.