Position:Home>Philosophy> What do you think about my new simplification (in details) of the global warming
Question: What do you think about my new simplification (in details) of the global warming dilema!?
My previous question was: If you had to choose for the human race to blow up the earth in ten years, OR you could prevent disaster by enslaving them all, which would you chose!?
This was my simplification of the global warming crisis we are facing!. Let's not talk about the doubts that global warming exists, here, that's another forum!. Let's just assume for the sake of this question it's real and human driven!.
The way I see it, humans are so set in their ways, the only way to change the future disaster (which includes warming, polar caps melting, cities abandoned, etc), is to FORCE humans to behave themselves in a more responsible manner!. Is it worth it!? Even if we raise taxes by 1!.2 trillion bucks a year (as Gore is pushing for), that essentially enslaves Americans for about 1 month of their working year (since they're working and the money earned goes to someone else)!. Will it make a difference!? no!. and China continues down the same road, and we've lost freedoms!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
I dont see a solution happening no matter what you do to people as individuals!. If the USA does everything it can and i mean EVERYTHING possible, global warming will continue because other countries do nothing!.
I think Global warming will solve itself by making humans die off from lack of food and water leading to a much lower population!. I could see 90% of the human population being killed off before the world heals itself to the point we had 1000 years ago!. Then it can all start again!. I think it is a natural "extinction" we are putting ourselves through!. Even if we solve global warming we will eventually go through something caused by overpopulation or loss of resourcesWww@QuestionHome@Com
"a huge drop in human population and land mass and animal species" means things much much much MUCH worser than higher taxes!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
I believe that losing freedom may be the only option to make people realise what a big deal this crisis is!. You see recycle ads on tv and maybe an article or two in a paper, but there is no current way known to us of how to open the world's eyes!. We still have poverty in the third world countries, and although people may make their ￡2 a month donations, they are just trying to make themselves look better, which is the wrong way to go about it!. People need to learn to put heart and soul into changing the world before its too late!. No Doubt we will survive, but at what cost is the question on my mind!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
well the way i see it that if things dont change people are going to be more depressed Gods going to loose to many good souls to depression!.!.i think he rather take them when the taken good and bring them back after a little wake up callWww@QuestionHome@Com
Part of the problem with your simplification is it does exaggerate the case quite a bit, as you seem to already realize!.
If taxes is slavery, we are all already enslaved and likely always will be!. Where a government provides a service, it must be paid for somehow!. And where there is no government at all another one will probably move in!. So you are really talking about a difference in magnitude, not one of slavery versus freedom!.
Likewise, it is really very unlikely for all human life to be wiped out!. A huge majority may be conceivable in some versions of the scenario, but by choosing those doomful ones it would seem you are more likely to arouse the ire of what skeptics there are!.
Ultimately, both situations really probably boil down to more or less the same scenario!. If there is human-caused global warming, there WILL be costs!.!.!. they can just be paid now or they can be paid later!. If there is no government influence at all, those with lots of money can buy mountain-top or subterranean retreats and ride out the heat for however long it takes to cool back down!. If there is interference, you can't get money from people who have none, so wealthy people will generally be forced to pay to keep the rest of humanity alive!.
Now some will say that wealthy people DESERVE to live and live well by virtue of those traits that made them wealthy in the first place!. And some will say that no person could possibly be wealthy to the degree they are without the labours of many other non-wealthy people so there is a certain amount of debt to be paid anyway!. These, however, are ethical questions that cannot be decided without reference to some kind of system!.!.!. either is valid without one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com