Eddison Hour- UnJammed

Pervach wrote:

Psalter wrote:At the detriment of the planet, when more efficient and more responsible alternatives are available?

I would say "To the benefit of humanity, despite the planet changing."

Now we get to the point where our thinking initially diverges. I would say "Humanity benefits, therefore it is a better world for humanity", whereas you might say "The planet is changing from how it was in 1750, and as "Nature" is the sole, intrinsic value, any change from this state is detrimental to "the planet", Therefore we must stop humanity" (i daresay not to that extent, but the thinking is similar)

No, I never said to stop humanity... you are engaging in Gilesian debate again.

Ideally, right now, if a person has a choice of two vehicles, of equal power, and one is Hybrid, and the other is full petrol, which should he (responsibly) choose?

Further, all other things being equal, the changing of our ideal greater habitat (biosphere if you will) is detrimental to humanity.

Go on, argue it isn't.

Psalter wrote:

Pervach wrote:

Psalter wrote:At the detriment of the planet, when more efficient and more responsible alternatives are available?

I would say "To the benefit of humanity, despite the planet changing."

Now we get to the point where our thinking initially diverges. I would say "Humanity benefits, therefore it is a better world for humanity", whereas you might say "The planet is changing from how it was in 1750, and as "Nature" is the sole, intrinsic value, any change from this state is detrimental to "the planet", Therefore we must stop humanity" (i daresay not to that extent, but the thinking is similar)

No, I never said to stop humanity... you are engaging in Gilesian debate again.

Ideally, right now, if a person has a choice of two vehicles, of equal power, and one is Hybrid, and the other is full petrol, which should he (responsibly) choose?

That would depend on his time preference, and how much he intends to use his vehicle. If he has a low time preference and/or will use his vehicle a great deal, it is worthwhile expending more resources initially to make a hybrid, as the resource savings over time, discounted to his particular time preference, will be greater. If he uses his vehicle very seldom, it would be a waste to expend the extra resources necessary to make a hybrid instead of a full petrol vehicle, as the opportunity cost of those initial resources will be greater than what he will save.

Oh, so now you advocate the lower expenditure of resources?

That was a swift turn-around wasn't it?

Psalter wrote:Further, all other things being equal, the changing of our ideal greater habitat (biosphere if you will) is detrimental to humanity.

Go on, argue it isn't.

This being an anti-adaptionist prose. If you take back you're claim that you are not anti-adaptionist, we will be back on the original topic. Bastar and adaptionism vs what the symbolism of earth hour represents, which is anti-adaptionism, that our ability to adapt is so meager that we can forget about it.

Psalter wrote:Oh, so now you advocate the lower expenditure of resources?

That was a swift turn-around wasn't it?

Hence my insistence on adding "just for the sake of it" or "except through natural market forces". I never held a position contrary to this.

There are still good reasons to conserve resources for better uses, and these reasons are conveyed through natural market prices, as someone else has another use for the same resources (possibly developing fusion power or something). Because they have a use for scarce resources, they are willing to pay for them, bidding the price up if their use is better than yours.

There is, however, no use in not using a resource altogether if it is available.

I will not, because I am not.

Understand that, then we can continue.

Oh, we are on to strawman arguments now?

Nice.

And i never even had to talk about whether or not global warming is man made.

Pervach wrote:I don't know what a strawman argument is.

Cool. You should look it up.

Dude... Oliver was right... you really don't get it.

Pervach wrote:And i never even had to talk about whether or not global warming is man made.

That's a better way of putting it but not meme-worthy.
Hey, love your thinking man. Thanks for using your wits!

Okay, tell you what... I will admit that it did not adequately represent the cause that it purported to if you will prove to me that during earth-hour, more resources were used.

Deal?

Don't use your beliefs as chips to buy things, man. Prostitution's uglyer still when it's your mind.

I do intend to elaborate on how the substitution effect to candles consumes more energy than otherwise. And I can add to that. Will you be happy? I'll youtube it or something.

Had wished to do that today.