Comment

Comment by ergonaught

"Improving human wealth" is hardly the point of anything at all. If you believe otherwise, I'm afraid you are horribly confused. You won't be alone, but you will be confused.

Are you trying to maximize "human wealth", "human life", or "quality of life"? You've brought at least three different priorities into it, and none of them are necessarily related to each other.

In any case, "climate change" will wreak havoc on humanity and everything else. We should aim to avoid that to the extent that we think wreaking havoc on humanity and everything else is bad. This will involve tradeoffs, some of which are certain to be unpleasant. Adapt-or-die is a fact of nature, so having to justify adapting is at least curious.

I remember a man on television many years ago who said he was in favor of "saving the planet", but who would pay for it? The implication was that if it cost too much money, he'd rather just let the planet die. That's a pretty wild idea, you know? Imagine a comet on a collision course with the planet, and we ask ourselves, you know, whether it's really worth spending all that money to prevent the annihilation of all life.

</ramble>

parent ergonaught 3 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton