Let's say, hypothetically, that the thousands of climate research labs across the world (not just the US) are generally all correct in that we are polluting our planet at an unsustainable rate that will cause general ecosystem collapse in a handful of generations. What would your solution be?
Fair question. I think that there are plenty of NAP compliant solutions that I could get down with.
Geo-engineering. Assuming that this is getting funded voluntarily, it can be a good way to bring down average global temperature. I understand that this is a new technology that needs more research and testing. If people are really concerned about climate change, they’ll put their money where their mouth is. The same goes for energy sources deemed to be clean. If people believe that this is the solution to a problem worth solving, they will put their own money towards fixing the problem.
Encouraging pro-growth policies. From my understanding, there is a bell curve hump type of relationship between a society’s emissions and how well off they are economically. I believe that the solution to this is to push for economic policies that encourage growth rather than disincentivizing it. As a general rule of thumb, a person starts caring more about the needs to others that are more distant to them when that person has the needs met of those whom are closer. I believe that cutting taxes and cutting government spending is the way forward here to ensure that people can meet their basic needs easier which I believe is a prerequisite to caring about global issues. I also think that tech like delivery drones will be helpful in bringing us over the emissions hump.
Rework our legal systems (courts) so that they are built around natural law as opposed to state positive law. The main issue with current pollution regulations is that it has a one size fits all approach. Companies effectively have a pollution license if they pollute below an arbitrary threshold. Natural law says that someone has committed a property rights violation when they have initiated a conflict on someone else’s property. So no more instances of companies getting away with pollution because they emitted below some arbitrary threshold yet still caused damage.
Adapting as needed. I do believe in climate change but I don’t share the same belief of people like Hank Green who say that all these apocalyptic things will happen if the Earth warms up by a few degrees. Humans are really good at changing their environment to fit their needs and that is exactly what will happen IF (big if) climate change causes significant changes to our daily lives. If famines occur, markets handle this by raises food prices which signal to entrepreneurs to produce more. If sea levels rise (which I don’t think will happen) levees can be built and maintained to prevent flooding.
Okay let's say we've already been doing that for years and everytime we give money to a problem it's fucking thrown into the garbage, on projects that or so unfathomably inefficient and wasteful, (CCSU or CCS) but instead we just dump more money onto the fire, ultimately not only screwing our citizens but doing jackshit simultaneously, so your solution is give them more money to burn.
If you are looking for a government to do something efficiently, than you should go back to sleep cause they only exist in a dream.
Ultimately if people care that much they'll change behavior, we've seen it with electricity, and all sorts of other bullshit, look how many people refuse to touch AI cause of the environment.
What method do you suggest to hold people accountable for the negative externalities their existence is responsible for?
Assume for the sake of argument that everything about the climate issues related to use of gasoline is true and that your use of this as car fuel will directly kill people in the future.
Lawsuits hold people accountable for their negative externalities as it has always been. Instead of establishing arbitrary thresholds for when pollution becomes illegal, the point at which pollution becomes immoral/bad/aggression is when the aggressor initiates a conflict against the victim of the crime with the burden of proof being on the victim to prove that there has been a property rights violation.
So I’d argue that small amounts of pollution are acceptable because otherwise I would have to say that breathing is wrong (which would be absurd) because technically breathing is a mild form of pollution.
That Reason video last month was getting dunked on in the comments when I watched it weeks ago so I'm not surprised a science YouTuber is picking it apart now. At one point the presenter makes an argument that the graphs show changes in weather, not climate - while showing a graph that was clearly charting a trend of high temperature records.
This is the one thing that makes me feel like I don’t fit in with libertarianism super well, I’m just about a 1st and 2nd amendment absolutist, but ignoring climate science corroborated across many different fields is ignorant at best
Yeah, I think there's room to debate to what degree humans are actually contributing to "climate change" (the scientific variety, and not the political one) versus what we know to be true of the cataclysmic and chaotic weather patterns for the millions of years that have preceded our meager 10k year existence. However, if we are going to be a multi-planet species or are going to colonize our solar system in any significant capacity, then we need to understand better how we are affecting our environment as well as how to manipulate it in a way that is responsible.
There really isn't that much room to debate, since it's impossible to deny that CO2 emissions trap heat in our atmosphere, which raises the average temperature of the planet, which changes things like weather patterns, ocean currents, ice level at poles, etc. Pretty much every research lab that studies this stuff has come to consensus. The only "debate" is what to do about it, not if it's happening and what the effects will be.
Yes, the beginning of recorded human history. I don't know about "lots of people." Estimates are that there were only ~400 million people on the planet at the beginning of the 15th century, as opposed to the 8+ billion we have now.
I just meant in terms of how far back we have for human observation of weather patterns... A lot of people like to hinge their argument on weather stations not existing pre-1850, but there are weather records from the Roman Empire (for instance). So at least we have some written records to cooroborate ice core samples and such.
There isn't really a debate is there? One is bodily autonomy. The other is big government telling you what to do. If I wake up from a coma because I was speeding and find myself donating blood to the victim of my car crash, I shouldn't be forced to keep donating blood so that they may live. Morally obligated? Maybe. But the government should stay out of forced morality.
We should all donate organs to science, medical education, and/or treatments. It would even save babies. However, no one is making a fuss about that because forced organ donation by government mandate is fucked. Why, when it only affects women's bodily autonomy, does there seem to be a debate, I wonder?
One is "this case of violating the right to life of someone is OK" and the other is "murder is a violation of human rights."
Not quite the strawman you put forward.
It isn't the same as being "hooked up to" a person without your consent. You consented to the known possible outcomes of your actions when you had sex (I am constraining this to only consensual sex between adults... other factors means new variables that can lead to different conclusions). So if you knew that speeding could result in your own body hooking itself up to the person you hit and you still sped... yes, you are on the hook because you knowingly did this even if your hopes and dreams were you'd get lucky and nothing come of the accident you caused.
You're argument is revealing. Why isn't it the same? Both are irresponsible activities. This is no different than a driver who consents to driving being forced to accept responsibility for any pedestrian they accidentally hit and must now donate blood, skin grafts, or organs to save them. I think there is a disconnect where a rational person recognizes that consent to activities isn't the same as consent to all it's possible outcomes, especially when it comes to the body.
I noticed you skirted around the rape problem. The "different conclusions" seems to imply that the fetus' right to life is contingent on how it was conceived. The fetus is identical in both cases. If the fetus is truly a person, why does its right to life depend on its father's behavior? This suggests that it's less about protecting life and more about punishing/holding those accountable for irresponsible sex. Even if you believe that, I think that's a huge leap to give the government the power to dictate your bodily obligations.
Consent to an activity inherently includes consent to all possible outcomes...
If not then I am going to Vegas and will only consent to having bet money on spins of the wheel in which I win.
I didn't "skirt around." I clearly stated that if you introduce different factors you get different results.
Bringing up rape is akin to an argument on if murder should be OK and the person in the affirmative brings up self-defense. That is a categorically different question with different factors.
If you did not choose to drive the car but we're forced to, woke up hooked up to the crash victim, then you are free to leave. You did not consent to the action thus can not be held to the outcomes.
Someone stole your money and put it on red but the wheel came up black... you do not morally owe the house.
I think you've overstretched the analogies here. The points have already been made by them. We've established what you believe. We've revealed it isn't about life, well, not solely. And the irony is I agree with you. I believe you have moral obligations. I also recognize things get morally grey when you start adding extenuating circumstances like rape, death, or quality of life.
Should you be forced to donate blood if the victim of the vehicular accident is going to die anyway? Or should you be forced to donate blood if the victim is going to drain your blood until you die?
However, this isn't a battleground for when abortion should be acceptable by the government. It's a battleground for whether the government should have a say on your moral obligations. As a libertarian, the answer is a resounding no. Anything less, and you cease to maintain the hold of libertarian philosophy. It's no different than supporting criminalizing drugs or firearms. It's incompatible.
If the government has a duty to defend your rights, then abortion should be illegal because it is murder. That is unless you can prove a fetus is not a distinct life seperate from the mother (hint... it isn't her body... the DNA does not match).
If abortion is acceptable in a system, then the system is not defending the right to life universally meaning the system does not recognize a right to life but only a previlage to life that the system can choose who gets and who doesn't.
It has zero to do with legalism based on morality. It is "does the government defend rights or not?"
If the circumstances alter killing someone from murder to justifiable self-defense and of such circumstances can be applied to abortion then sure, you may have a situation where the abortion can be justified... but that requires adding things beyond the basic concept to get a constructed outcome. Important to do for when those circumstances exist.. sure. But when discussing abortion at a conceptual level it is generally understood in the most basic, straightforward sense...
Consensual sex resulting in a child that gets killed because... reasons?
Anything beyond requires altering the scenario beyond the general understanding. But that doesn't get you anywhere really if you don't first get the basic form settled.
The debate touches on broad ethical questions about what rights children have, what additional obligations parents have towards their own children and to what extent third parties are permitted to intervene. Personally I don't see how one could possibly think that this is an easy debate.
Why, when it only affects women's bodily autonomy, does there seem to be a debate, I wonder?
I don't think that this is an honest framing of the intra-libertarian discussion. Among libertarians, bodily autonomy of women is completely uncontroversial in pretty much every other way.
Pragmatically, for a number of reasons, I don't think we should have government (or some ancap counterpart thereof) outlaw elective abortions, regardless of what moral stance I might eventually adopt. However, I also think that using taxes from people who believe abortion is murder to pay for abortions is probably among the worst things our governments do (besides war obviously).
I think we have to chalk abortion up to a personal feeling. I think "legal and rare" gets bashed, but I think a country with very few abortions for any reason is indicative of a healthy, safe, and prosperous society.
You can’t apply the NAP to the environment. The environment cannot consent to anything, we would have to stop construction and production of pretty much everything.
I’m all for finding solutions to preserve the Earth, but thats an incredibly dumb idea.
If the land has no owner the who gives a fuck? If the owner consents to it then who gives a fuck?
Correct, Thats why if you want to protect the environment you have to homestead or trade land instead of using a monopoly on violence to threaten or kill people who don't agree with you.
Yeah? I only disagreed that you said the NAP can't be applied to the environment when it can through the extension of a person's rightful ownership over a plot of land.
No the basis is not harming another's property. I can consent to your changing my property, hence my original question about what I actually own. I can cosent to you polluting my water.
Totally wrong, this is exactly what I meant by fake libertarians in my earlier comment.
Under the NAP for an action to be moral it needs to be consensual. The environment cannot consent. If you own the property, then YOU can consent, but that’s irrelevant to the original subject.
Uhh I think they can, was it palkistan that got like 25 percent of their energy by Solar power, in six months with no government help, I can’t remember the exact country, off the top of my head but it happened thanks to random people buying solar panels from China when their energy costs were massive and their infrastructure terrible.
So, even if Reason is wrong and Hank (who is this guy??) is correct about the climate, does this mean we need to accept coercive Net-Zero policies that lead to deindustrialization, a worldwide CO2 tax and the phase out of perfectly efficient ICE vehicles by 2035?
A science which claims that these measures are needed to "save the planet" is the kind of science that I am suspicious about. If Hank (who is this guy??) does not want to force Net-Zero, CO2 taxes and 100% BEVs by 2025, then maybe he is worth listening to...
I think you are creating a bit of a strawman since this is not really what climate advocates believe. Can you provide any real papers by climate research labs declaring those example solutions you brought up are the things we MUST do (and not just a potential course of action)?
ZincSuppsRopeMan - Strangely your question disappeared, but I saw part of it in the notifications, you asked in what way we are being forced:
1) CO2 taxes on 5 levels, mostly for industry, which makes products more expensive, as well as The Energy Tax (Energiesteuer) for individuals
2) Penalties were threatened on car companies who do not sell a certain percentage of BEVs. This got our car industry in trouble losing tens of thousands of jobs
3) Net-Zero policies causes us (in Germany) to have among the highest electricity prices in the world
4) Pushing consumers to buy BEVs while lithium batteries are not mature and the charging network is insufficient. First through BEV subsidies, but also through local restrictions with zones where certain types of vehicles are not permitted (especially efficient and relatively new Diesel sedans).
5) the threat that no new ICEs will be allowed to be sold by 2035 has been devastating for the car industry and also puts pressure on car buyers.
6) Oil and Gas heating systems are forced to be phased out, to be replaced with totally overpriced heat pumps. Many people (especially pensioners) have to sell their homes if they cannot afford the mandated changes.
All these taken together are gross violations of private property rights in return for almost no effect on the world climate (zero point something...).
Net-Zero by 2045, CO2 taxes and 100% BEVs by 2035 (for new cars) as well as being forced to use heat pumps are climate policies pushed on us in Europe.
Apparently Hank supports Net-Zero policies. If climate researchers do not propose these solutions as you suggest, where does the EU and the UK get their policies from? What exactly are climate researchers (who believe in man-made global warming) suggesting?
"Can you provide any real papers by climate research labs declaring those example solutions". As governments are enforcing these "solutions", they should be the ones to provide the real papers.
Some European countries have set net-zero targets, yes, but targets are not mandates. You may have to educate me since I'm not European, but in what way are you being forced to do anything (aside from the EV thing, which nobody pretends is going to solve the climate crisis).
I asked you since you seemed to have strong opinions about the topic. Surely someone as suspicious as you about climate science would be able to at least vaguely recollect some research papers, right? Maybe it's just cuz I'm a physicist, but I at least have an idea of where the things I believe originate from.
As governments are enforcing these "solutions", they should be the ones to provide the real papers.
They have. Literally every country has national labs that study the climate and weather. The US has 3 entire agencies dedicated to it (NASA, NOAA, and the EPA). My point in asking you was to demonstrate that you are not well educated about this topic, and should probably assert less about it.
Reason may be wrong and Hank Green is just annoying.
I want to go look at the Reason video now. I listened to about 15 minutes of this while walking home from work and Hank's scripted "uncontrollable" emotional reactions and needless f-bombs are pretty dumb and detracts from anything of substance he had to say.
"and" and "but" bring two different meanings to that sentence. I would say being annoying is generally worse. People listen to you less, no matter how true your words may be.
Maybe it's just because I'm a physicist, but people who are swayed into believing falsehoods based upon whether or not the messenger is "annoying" are genuinely cattle and should not have their opinions valued.
Yea, true or not, he certainly didn't present it well. His emotions were loud and clear, compared to the video he was pointing at. Made me question if he would be willing to change his mind, regardless of what the truth was. Facts aside, he presented his arguments horribly.
yeah he's definitely one of, if not the, most annoying people on the internet. Real science and math is hard, rigorous, and good science requires a solid understanding of basic math and statistics. Most people aren't willing to go through the hard stuff to understand it, and so you end up with the most popular science based videos being from entertaining people rather than informative ones. I mean even the best channels like 3blue1brown make you feel like you understood the concept, but I bet most people wouldn't be able recreate the ideas even right after watching the video.
All this science crap on youtube is entertainment, nothing more.
Both the Green brothers are overly neutronic with a fanbase astroterfed by billionaires and it comes flowing through if you watch the video.
We have live action failures in green energy policy, see Germany, where household electricity costs have tripled. The green movement is a failure, unless your goal is to make people poorer, and subject them to more covert control by a tiny, infamously rich elite.
Basically the global warming, I'm sorry climate change community goes from one government sponsored study to the next, and as long as that study produces what the government wants, an excuse for more taxes and centralized control over the economy, the funding money keeps flowing. They go from one incorrect doomsday prediction to the next, while never addressing why all their previous predictions were wrong.
Is it easy to mislead with statistics and data? Sure is. But that doesn't change the reality that every climate change doomsday prediction to this point has been wrong, and only benefit big business and the elite at the cost of the living conditions of ordinary people.
Your brain is corrupted if your title contains "slams" or any deviation thereof. He's 100% correct, though. The original video was intentionally misleading, and ironically cherrypicking things to call out.
He's a YouTube celebrity who makes science videos, mostly affiliated with PBS. The SciShow channel is one of them, though he hasn't been in front of the camera as much the last few years. He's as familiar to Gen Z as Bill Nye was to millenials.
This one is likely from his personal channel where he shows his strong political bias.
I've seen some of the Aaron Brown videos on Reason before and had the same issues and started ignoring them. he's guilty of most of the accusations he levels towards others
it's typical think thank science, it will have stuff that's varying degrees of valid but filtered through the org's ideology, which isn't even a useless exercise if you know that going in, but elevating it to the status of education for the general public is misleading
“Not because he believes it, but because he has an agenda” is a fascinating take on an opinion piece. Those two things are absolutely not mutually exclusive.
Eh, I like Hank Green... I imagine if him and I were to have a policy debate on how to address this issue that we wouldn't agree. However, I do agree with Hank that it's a BAD Reason video. I think the best work they do is actually highlighting or talking about good policy to deal with issues.
Hank Green is a very intelligent guy with great ideas, but very vulnerable to "toxic empathy." My favorite kind of leftys are the ones that are that way because they can't seem to stomach any level of utilitarianism if it can potentially cause even an ounce of suffering.
Yeah the Green bros lost my respect when they wouldn't even follow their own rules about harassment at one of their events. Harassment is ok when it's a political ally aimed at the opposition? Their rules for thee but not for me attitude makes me ignore most everything they pay these days.
I don’t like the ratio graph or the opinion that it is a good graph. If there are an equal number of record highs as lows then the graph would show gray. At first glance it appears as though it was a nice mild or moderate year but that’s not the case. That scenario would indicate we are boiling half the year and frozen to the core the other half. It’s akin to a bad average. If I stick one hand in boiling water and the other in liquid nitrogen then on average my temperature is about normal but in reality I’m fucked. So I don’t like that graph and don’t believe it serves an accurate and holistic purpose. Will have to watch the rest later after work.
Global warming (calling it climate change is 1. moving the goal posts and 2) is a religion with all troupes. Original sin, priests, guilt for existence, and forced conformity.
Wrong or not, science or not, I’m siding with Reason and not the religious wackos
Agreed. I made it through the first few minutes before remembering that I don't care enough about what Hank Green thinks about what Reason thinks about climate for it to be worth watching a half hour video on that subject. Why would I? If OP wants me to watch this they'll need to frame the proposition a lot better than just asking "thoughts?" Dude, give us SOMETHING. What are YOUR thoughts? Why do YOU think this video is especially useful/important/interesting?
When an embedded video like this says "Sign in to confirm you’re not a bot"...how is one supposed to do that, exactly? There's an underlined "Sign in" but clicking it does nothing. There's a Youtube icon in the bottom right but clicking it takes me straight to youtube.com, not the linked video. In THIS case I was able to find the video by going to youtube and searching for "hank green slams reason" to find it again but that can't possibly be the intended workflow...
Loominardy@reddit
If anything, this demonstrates why libertarians need to stick primarily to principles when arguing.
No Daddy Government, you can’t tax me for using gasoline or fossil fuels and use it to fund solar panels because taxation is theft.
No Environmentalists, you do not have a right to any unclaimed land because of the fact that it is unowned.
And no leftoids, you cannot use climate fear mongering to justify taking more money from people or restricting how they use their own property.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
Let's say, hypothetically, that the thousands of climate research labs across the world (not just the US) are generally all correct in that we are polluting our planet at an unsustainable rate that will cause general ecosystem collapse in a handful of generations. What would your solution be?
Loominardy@reddit
Fair question. I think that there are plenty of NAP compliant solutions that I could get down with.
Geo-engineering. Assuming that this is getting funded voluntarily, it can be a good way to bring down average global temperature. I understand that this is a new technology that needs more research and testing. If people are really concerned about climate change, they’ll put their money where their mouth is. The same goes for energy sources deemed to be clean. If people believe that this is the solution to a problem worth solving, they will put their own money towards fixing the problem.
Encouraging pro-growth policies. From my understanding, there is a bell curve hump type of relationship between a society’s emissions and how well off they are economically. I believe that the solution to this is to push for economic policies that encourage growth rather than disincentivizing it. As a general rule of thumb, a person starts caring more about the needs to others that are more distant to them when that person has the needs met of those whom are closer. I believe that cutting taxes and cutting government spending is the way forward here to ensure that people can meet their basic needs easier which I believe is a prerequisite to caring about global issues. I also think that tech like delivery drones will be helpful in bringing us over the emissions hump.
Rework our legal systems (courts) so that they are built around natural law as opposed to state positive law. The main issue with current pollution regulations is that it has a one size fits all approach. Companies effectively have a pollution license if they pollute below an arbitrary threshold. Natural law says that someone has committed a property rights violation when they have initiated a conflict on someone else’s property. So no more instances of companies getting away with pollution because they emitted below some arbitrary threshold yet still caused damage.
Adapting as needed. I do believe in climate change but I don’t share the same belief of people like Hank Green who say that all these apocalyptic things will happen if the Earth warms up by a few degrees. Humans are really good at changing their environment to fit their needs and that is exactly what will happen IF (big if) climate change causes significant changes to our daily lives. If famines occur, markets handle this by raises food prices which signal to entrepreneurs to produce more. If sea levels rise (which I don’t think will happen) levees can be built and maintained to prevent flooding.
Time193@reddit
Okay let's say we've already been doing that for years and everytime we give money to a problem it's fucking thrown into the garbage, on projects that or so unfathomably inefficient and wasteful, (CCSU or CCS) but instead we just dump more money onto the fire, ultimately not only screwing our citizens but doing jackshit simultaneously, so your solution is give them more money to burn.
If you are looking for a government to do something efficiently, than you should go back to sleep cause they only exist in a dream.
Ultimately if people care that much they'll change behavior, we've seen it with electricity, and all sorts of other bullshit, look how many people refuse to touch AI cause of the environment.
takeshyperbolelitera@reddit
What method do you suggest to hold people accountable for the negative externalities their existence is responsible for?
Assume for the sake of argument that everything about the climate issues related to use of gasoline is true and that your use of this as car fuel will directly kill people in the future.
Loominardy@reddit
Lawsuits hold people accountable for their negative externalities as it has always been. Instead of establishing arbitrary thresholds for when pollution becomes illegal, the point at which pollution becomes immoral/bad/aggression is when the aggressor initiates a conflict against the victim of the crime with the burden of proof being on the victim to prove that there has been a property rights violation.
So I’d argue that small amounts of pollution are acceptable because otherwise I would have to say that breathing is wrong (which would be absurd) because technically breathing is a mild form of pollution.
According_Loss_1768@reddit
That Reason video last month was getting dunked on in the comments when I watched it weeks ago so I'm not surprised a science YouTuber is picking it apart now. At one point the presenter makes an argument that the graphs show changes in weather, not climate - while showing a graph that was clearly charting a trend of high temperature records.
Dickermax118@reddit
This is the one thing that makes me feel like I don’t fit in with libertarianism super well, I’m just about a 1st and 2nd amendment absolutist, but ignoring climate science corroborated across many different fields is ignorant at best
berkough@reddit
Yeah, I think there's room to debate to what degree humans are actually contributing to "climate change" (the scientific variety, and not the political one) versus what we know to be true of the cataclysmic and chaotic weather patterns for the millions of years that have preceded our meager 10k year existence. However, if we are going to be a multi-planet species or are going to colonize our solar system in any significant capacity, then we need to understand better how we are affecting our environment as well as how to manipulate it in a way that is responsible.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
There really isn't that much room to debate, since it's impossible to deny that CO2 emissions trap heat in our atmosphere, which raises the average temperature of the planet, which changes things like weather patterns, ocean currents, ice level at poles, etc. Pretty much every research lab that studies this stuff has come to consensus. The only "debate" is what to do about it, not if it's happening and what the effects will be.
berkough@reddit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRBfM709Yqc
nolwad@reddit
Tangential, but what do you refer to when you say 10k year existence? Does that mean civilization with cities and lots of people?
berkough@reddit
Yes, the beginning of recorded human history. I don't know about "lots of people." Estimates are that there were only ~400 million people on the planet at the beginning of the 15th century, as opposed to the 8+ billion we have now.
I just meant in terms of how far back we have for human observation of weather patterns... A lot of people like to hinge their argument on weather stations not existing pre-1850, but there are weather records from the Roman Empire (for instance). So at least we have some written records to cooroborate ice core samples and such.
soleilange@reddit
This and a lot of silence around abortion rights.
TribeWars@reddit
Silence? This is a very common debate in Libertarian circles and I understand why people come down on both sides.
oWatchdog@reddit
There isn't really a debate is there? One is bodily autonomy. The other is big government telling you what to do. If I wake up from a coma because I was speeding and find myself donating blood to the victim of my car crash, I shouldn't be forced to keep donating blood so that they may live. Morally obligated? Maybe. But the government should stay out of forced morality.
We should all donate organs to science, medical education, and/or treatments. It would even save babies. However, no one is making a fuss about that because forced organ donation by government mandate is fucked. Why, when it only affects women's bodily autonomy, does there seem to be a debate, I wonder?
sparkstable@reddit
One is "this case of violating the right to life of someone is OK" and the other is "murder is a violation of human rights."
Not quite the strawman you put forward.
It isn't the same as being "hooked up to" a person without your consent. You consented to the known possible outcomes of your actions when you had sex (I am constraining this to only consensual sex between adults... other factors means new variables that can lead to different conclusions). So if you knew that speeding could result in your own body hooking itself up to the person you hit and you still sped... yes, you are on the hook because you knowingly did this even if your hopes and dreams were you'd get lucky and nothing come of the accident you caused.
oWatchdog@reddit
You're argument is revealing. Why isn't it the same? Both are irresponsible activities. This is no different than a driver who consents to driving being forced to accept responsibility for any pedestrian they accidentally hit and must now donate blood, skin grafts, or organs to save them. I think there is a disconnect where a rational person recognizes that consent to activities isn't the same as consent to all it's possible outcomes, especially when it comes to the body.
I noticed you skirted around the rape problem. The "different conclusions" seems to imply that the fetus' right to life is contingent on how it was conceived. The fetus is identical in both cases. If the fetus is truly a person, why does its right to life depend on its father's behavior? This suggests that it's less about protecting life and more about punishing/holding those accountable for irresponsible sex. Even if you believe that, I think that's a huge leap to give the government the power to dictate your bodily obligations.
sparkstable@reddit
Consent to an activity inherently includes consent to all possible outcomes...
If not then I am going to Vegas and will only consent to having bet money on spins of the wheel in which I win.
I didn't "skirt around." I clearly stated that if you introduce different factors you get different results.
Bringing up rape is akin to an argument on if murder should be OK and the person in the affirmative brings up self-defense. That is a categorically different question with different factors.
If you did not choose to drive the car but we're forced to, woke up hooked up to the crash victim, then you are free to leave. You did not consent to the action thus can not be held to the outcomes.
Someone stole your money and put it on red but the wheel came up black... you do not morally owe the house.
oWatchdog@reddit
I think you've overstretched the analogies here. The points have already been made by them. We've established what you believe. We've revealed it isn't about life, well, not solely. And the irony is I agree with you. I believe you have moral obligations. I also recognize things get morally grey when you start adding extenuating circumstances like rape, death, or quality of life.
Should you be forced to donate blood if the victim of the vehicular accident is going to die anyway? Or should you be forced to donate blood if the victim is going to drain your blood until you die?
However, this isn't a battleground for when abortion should be acceptable by the government. It's a battleground for whether the government should have a say on your moral obligations. As a libertarian, the answer is a resounding no. Anything less, and you cease to maintain the hold of libertarian philosophy. It's no different than supporting criminalizing drugs or firearms. It's incompatible.
sparkstable@reddit
If the government has a duty to defend your rights, then abortion should be illegal because it is murder. That is unless you can prove a fetus is not a distinct life seperate from the mother (hint... it isn't her body... the DNA does not match).
If abortion is acceptable in a system, then the system is not defending the right to life universally meaning the system does not recognize a right to life but only a previlage to life that the system can choose who gets and who doesn't.
It has zero to do with legalism based on morality. It is "does the government defend rights or not?"
If the circumstances alter killing someone from murder to justifiable self-defense and of such circumstances can be applied to abortion then sure, you may have a situation where the abortion can be justified... but that requires adding things beyond the basic concept to get a constructed outcome. Important to do for when those circumstances exist.. sure. But when discussing abortion at a conceptual level it is generally understood in the most basic, straightforward sense...
Consensual sex resulting in a child that gets killed because... reasons?
Anything beyond requires altering the scenario beyond the general understanding. But that doesn't get you anywhere really if you don't first get the basic form settled.
TribeWars@reddit
The debate touches on broad ethical questions about what rights children have, what additional obligations parents have towards their own children and to what extent third parties are permitted to intervene. Personally I don't see how one could possibly think that this is an easy debate.
I don't think that this is an honest framing of the intra-libertarian discussion. Among libertarians, bodily autonomy of women is completely uncontroversial in pretty much every other way.
Pragmatically, for a number of reasons, I don't think we should have government (or some ancap counterpart thereof) outlaw elective abortions, regardless of what moral stance I might eventually adopt. However, I also think that using taxes from people who believe abortion is murder to pay for abortions is probably among the worst things our governments do (besides war obviously).
theshnig@reddit
I think we have to chalk abortion up to a personal feeling. I think "legal and rare" gets bashed, but I think a country with very few abortions for any reason is indicative of a healthy, safe, and prosperous society.
Parabellum12@reddit
You can’t apply the NAP to the environment. The environment cannot consent to anything, we would have to stop construction and production of pretty much everything.
I’m all for finding solutions to preserve the Earth, but thats an incredibly dumb idea.
Aba_a@reddit
I feel you man.
Olieskio@reddit
But you can? I own my land, if you fuck it up by polluting it im entitled to restitution + retribution
Parabellum12@reddit
Yes, YOU are. Not the environment.
Olieskio@reddit
And thats how you do environmentalism, You homestead the land and conserve it and no one has the right to pollute it.
Parabellum12@reddit
And if the land has no owner? Or if the owner consents to it being polluted? Then what?
The environment doesn’t have rights. It literally can’t. You can’t apply the NAP to it because consent is needed
Olieskio@reddit
If the land has no owner the who gives a fuck? If the owner consents to it then who gives a fuck?
Correct, Thats why if you want to protect the environment you have to homestead or trade land instead of using a monopoly on violence to threaten or kill people who don't agree with you.
Parabellum12@reddit
Dude you’re agreeing with me….
Olieskio@reddit
Yeah? I only disagreed that you said the NAP can't be applied to the environment when it can through the extension of a person's rightful ownership over a plot of land.
Pgaccount@reddit
How high do I own? And how low?
Parabellum12@reddit
What are you talking about?
Pgaccount@reddit
Well do I own the aquifer under my house? What about the air surrounding my house?
Parabellum12@reddit
Depends on your local laws, at the very least you have a right to use it. What does this have to do with the NAP?
Pgaccount@reddit
Well the NAP comes from property rights in owning your body, so it would naturally extend to your property.
Local laws? Lol no I mean what do you personally believe. Otherwise we could say "local laws ban gasoline engines so I guess that's ok"
Parabellum12@reddit
The basis of the NAP is consent. The environment literally cannot consent so you cannot apply those same principles.
Pgaccount@reddit
No the basis is not harming another's property. I can consent to your changing my property, hence my original question about what I actually own. I can cosent to you polluting my water.
Parabellum12@reddit
Totally wrong, this is exactly what I meant by fake libertarians in my earlier comment.
Under the NAP for an action to be moral it needs to be consensual. The environment cannot consent. If you own the property, then YOU can consent, but that’s irrelevant to the original subject.
Pgaccount@reddit
But that is relevant because I own the environment of my property. If you're dumping NOx into my air that's a violation of NAP.
Purplegreenandred@reddit
No they cant lol
Olieskio@reddit
Oh yes because Tragedy of The Commons just don't exist.
anonpurple@reddit
Uhh I think they can, was it palkistan that got like 25 percent of their energy by Solar power, in six months with no government help, I can’t remember the exact country, off the top of my head but it happened thanks to random people buying solar panels from China when their energy costs were massive and their infrastructure terrible.
Can’t remember the exact country.
embarrassing_doodle@reddit
Well said
ChrisWayg@reddit
So, even if Reason is wrong and Hank (who is this guy??) is correct about the climate, does this mean we need to accept coercive Net-Zero policies that lead to deindustrialization, a worldwide CO2 tax and the phase out of perfectly efficient ICE vehicles by 2035?
A science which claims that these measures are needed to "save the planet" is the kind of science that I am suspicious about. If Hank (who is this guy??) does not want to force Net-Zero, CO2 taxes and 100% BEVs by 2025, then maybe he is worth listening to...
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
I think you are creating a bit of a strawman since this is not really what climate advocates believe. Can you provide any real papers by climate research labs declaring those example solutions you brought up are the things we MUST do (and not just a potential course of action)?
ChrisWayg@reddit
ZincSuppsRopeMan - Strangely your question disappeared, but I saw part of it in the notifications, you asked in what way we are being forced:
1) CO2 taxes on 5 levels, mostly for industry, which makes products more expensive, as well as The Energy Tax (Energiesteuer) for individuals
2) Penalties were threatened on car companies who do not sell a certain percentage of BEVs. This got our car industry in trouble losing tens of thousands of jobs
3) Net-Zero policies causes us (in Germany) to have among the highest electricity prices in the world
4) Pushing consumers to buy BEVs while lithium batteries are not mature and the charging network is insufficient. First through BEV subsidies, but also through local restrictions with zones where certain types of vehicles are not permitted (especially efficient and relatively new Diesel sedans).
5) the threat that no new ICEs will be allowed to be sold by 2035 has been devastating for the car industry and also puts pressure on car buyers.
6) Oil and Gas heating systems are forced to be phased out, to be replaced with totally overpriced heat pumps. Many people (especially pensioners) have to sell their homes if they cannot afford the mandated changes.
All these taken together are gross violations of private property rights in return for almost no effect on the world climate (zero point something...).
ChrisWayg@reddit
Net-Zero by 2045, CO2 taxes and 100% BEVs by 2035 (for new cars) as well as being forced to use heat pumps are climate policies pushed on us in Europe.
Apparently Hank supports Net-Zero policies. If climate researchers do not propose these solutions as you suggest, where does the EU and the UK get their policies from? What exactly are climate researchers (who believe in man-made global warming) suggesting?
"Can you provide any real papers by climate research labs declaring those example solutions". As governments are enforcing these "solutions", they should be the ones to provide the real papers.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
Some European countries have set net-zero targets, yes, but targets are not mandates. You may have to educate me since I'm not European, but in what way are you being forced to do anything (aside from the EV thing, which nobody pretends is going to solve the climate crisis).
I asked you since you seemed to have strong opinions about the topic. Surely someone as suspicious as you about climate science would be able to at least vaguely recollect some research papers, right? Maybe it's just cuz I'm a physicist, but I at least have an idea of where the things I believe originate from.
They have. Literally every country has national labs that study the climate and weather. The US has 3 entire agencies dedicated to it (NASA, NOAA, and the EPA). My point in asking you was to demonstrate that you are not well educated about this topic, and should probably assert less about it.
perpetualfloating@reddit
Reason may be wrong and Hank Green is just annoying.
I want to go look at the Reason video now. I listened to about 15 minutes of this while walking home from work and Hank's scripted "uncontrollable" emotional reactions and needless f-bombs are pretty dumb and detracts from anything of substance he had to say.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
"I may be wrong and lying... but you're annoying, and that's worse!" lol
perpetualfloating@reddit
"and" and "but" bring two different meanings to that sentence. I would say being annoying is generally worse. People listen to you less, no matter how true your words may be.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
Maybe it's just because I'm a physicist, but people who are swayed into believing falsehoods based upon whether or not the messenger is "annoying" are genuinely cattle and should not have their opinions valued.
EpsilonGecko@reddit
He is so annoying thank you
chaoking3119@reddit
Yea, true or not, he certainly didn't present it well. His emotions were loud and clear, compared to the video he was pointing at. Made me question if he would be willing to change his mind, regardless of what the truth was. Facts aside, he presented his arguments horribly.
SignalYard9421@reddit
yeah he's definitely one of, if not the, most annoying people on the internet. Real science and math is hard, rigorous, and good science requires a solid understanding of basic math and statistics. Most people aren't willing to go through the hard stuff to understand it, and so you end up with the most popular science based videos being from entertaining people rather than informative ones. I mean even the best channels like 3blue1brown make you feel like you understood the concept, but I bet most people wouldn't be able recreate the ideas even right after watching the video.
All this science crap on youtube is entertainment, nothing more.
YogurtclosetWrong268@reddit
If the climate ever stops changing something has gone drastically wrong.
ZincSuppsRopeMan@reddit
Very reductionist conclusion about humans' role in polluting our planet
Dangime@reddit
Both the Green brothers are overly neutronic with a fanbase astroterfed by billionaires and it comes flowing through if you watch the video.
We have live action failures in green energy policy, see Germany, where household electricity costs have tripled. The green movement is a failure, unless your goal is to make people poorer, and subject them to more covert control by a tiny, infamously rich elite.
Basically the global warming, I'm sorry climate change community goes from one government sponsored study to the next, and as long as that study produces what the government wants, an excuse for more taxes and centralized control over the economy, the funding money keeps flowing. They go from one incorrect doomsday prediction to the next, while never addressing why all their previous predictions were wrong.
Is it easy to mislead with statistics and data? Sure is. But that doesn't change the reality that every climate change doomsday prediction to this point has been wrong, and only benefit big business and the elite at the cost of the living conditions of ordinary people.
oWatchdog@reddit
Your brain is corrupted if your title contains "slams" or any deviation thereof. He's 100% correct, though. The original video was intentionally misleading, and ironically cherrypicking things to call out.
AlphaTangoFoxtrt@reddit
Who the fuck is Hank Green and why should I care what he has to say?
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
He's a YouTube celebrity who makes science videos, mostly affiliated with PBS. The SciShow channel is one of them, though he hasn't been in front of the camera as much the last few years. He's as familiar to Gen Z as Bill Nye was to millenials.
This one is likely from his personal channel where he shows his strong political bias.
cock-block-o-clock@reddit
I've seen some of the Aaron Brown videos on Reason before and had the same issues and started ignoring them. he's guilty of most of the accusations he levels towards others
it's typical think thank science, it will have stuff that's varying degrees of valid but filtered through the org's ideology, which isn't even a useless exercise if you know that going in, but elevating it to the status of education for the general public is misleading
and none of this implies aything specific lol
bduxbellorum@reddit
“Not because he believes it, but because he has an agenda” is a fascinating take on an opinion piece. Those two things are absolutely not mutually exclusive.
SoyDivision1776@reddit
yes but theres a difference between having an agenda while engaging in good faith and having an agenda and being intentionally misleading
berkough@reddit
Eh, I like Hank Green... I imagine if him and I were to have a policy debate on how to address this issue that we wouldn't agree. However, I do agree with Hank that it's a BAD Reason video. I think the best work they do is actually highlighting or talking about good policy to deal with issues.
Chosenwaffle@reddit
Hank Green is a very intelligent guy with great ideas, but very vulnerable to "toxic empathy." My favorite kind of leftys are the ones that are that way because they can't seem to stomach any level of utilitarianism if it can potentially cause even an ounce of suffering.
SoyDivision1776@reddit
What kind of "toxic empathy". I don't think he's ever denied that his policy prescriptions have some moral costs
laktes@reddit
Yes yes we really need more taxes on everything to save the world because that’s gonna make the weather better and more power to the WEF.
Taki32@reddit
Yeah the Green bros lost my respect when they wouldn't even follow their own rules about harassment at one of their events. Harassment is ok when it's a political ally aimed at the opposition? Their rules for thee but not for me attitude makes me ignore most everything they pay these days.
confederate_yankee@reddit
I don’t like the ratio graph or the opinion that it is a good graph. If there are an equal number of record highs as lows then the graph would show gray. At first glance it appears as though it was a nice mild or moderate year but that’s not the case. That scenario would indicate we are boiling half the year and frozen to the core the other half. It’s akin to a bad average. If I stick one hand in boiling water and the other in liquid nitrogen then on average my temperature is about normal but in reality I’m fucked. So I don’t like that graph and don’t believe it serves an accurate and holistic purpose. Will have to watch the rest later after work.
LoloTheRogan@reddit
Reason mag is trash.
wgcole01@reddit
Oh, no! ... Anyway ...
iroll20s@reddit
Well its not the first reason video I've had issue with their methodology. It makes it really hard to trust their conclusions.
plato3633@reddit
Global warming (calling it climate change is 1. moving the goal posts and 2) is a religion with all troupes. Original sin, priests, guilt for existence, and forced conformity.
Wrong or not, science or not, I’m siding with Reason and not the religious wackos
diderooy@reddit
A video I would rather read than watch that talks about another video I would rather read than watch.
Shitty post, OP. If you want us to take the time to reflect, do more than just sharing a link.
glenra@reddit
Agreed. I made it through the first few minutes before remembering that I don't care enough about what Hank Green thinks about what Reason thinks about climate for it to be worth watching a half hour video on that subject. Why would I? If OP wants me to watch this they'll need to frame the proposition a lot better than just asking "thoughts?" Dude, give us SOMETHING. What are YOUR thoughts? Why do YOU think this video is especially useful/important/interesting?
glenra@reddit
When an embedded video like this says "Sign in to confirm you’re not a bot"...how is one supposed to do that, exactly? There's an underlined "Sign in" but clicking it does nothing. There's a Youtube icon in the bottom right but clicking it takes me straight to youtube.com, not the linked video. In THIS case I was able to find the video by going to youtube and searching for "hank green slams reason" to find it again but that can't possibly be the intended workflow...