Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, February 16, 2025, 11:34 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have agreed that current practices involving the use of fossil fuels, deforestation, and poisonous methods of transport and agriculture can only lead to an escalation of damage in the future, and therefore we should try to find alternatives as quickly as pragmatically possible, i.e. without causing social and economic havoc. As for being a Trump advisor, would your advice to him be to encourage all countries to pursue their own interests, regardless of the damage their practices may cause to humans and all other occupants of our planet, or would you suggest that he should encourage them to follow America’s example and cut down on such practices?

DAVID: I agree with the fact that future climate is an issue to study. It is very multifactorial and the current predictive models are not correct. I follow the climate studies very closely. No alarm is needed.

dhw: You have completely ignored every single argument with which you have previously agreed.
I have summarized the situation above. Please tell us what you disagree with.

DAVID: No longer specifically ignored.

dhw: You have simply drawn attention to examples of measures that do not achieve the balance which is required. There is nothing in your response that contradicts anything I have written.

Clearly you agree with everything I have said, but for some reason you hate to say so.

DAVID: Another assessment that I agree with:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMHNwxcbkGwwJsGjSNjlWtDv

You have reproduced the Hossenfelder article you quoted on 8 February. To refresh your memory, this was my reply:

She accepts the reality of climate change, and her prophecy makes it horrifyingly clear that economic interests (plus AI and people’s reluctance to change their habits) will outweigh what you and I and even Musk have agreed are very real threats to our environment. I agree with you that we should ignore the panicky folks. As I keep saying, and you keep agreeing, current known dangers should be enough to make us strive towards a balanced, pragmatic approach to avert their continuation and – as she points out – the probable escalation of those dangers. Sadly, Trump epitomizes those powers which will lead to more and more damage and will help Hossenfelder’s prophecy to come true.

Is there anything you disagree with?