Balance of nature: human and theological implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, February 17, 2025, 19:56 (17 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are pressing for more concern. I am not.

dhw: I press for pragmatic action to prevent the continuation and escalation of the damage already being caused, to be balanced against the need to prevent social and economic disaster. You have agreed. In what way is your concern less than mine?

Believe me, it is less.

DAVID: Another assessment that I agree with:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZTMHNwxcbkGwwJsGjSNjlWtDv

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

dhw: 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?

DAVID: You may not recognize it, but you panic sticks out. Horrifyingly clear?

dhw: Do you or don’t you agree that if current practices continue (e.g. dependence on fossil fuels, deforestation, earth, air and water poisoned by polluting modes of transport and agriculture), the damage to human and animal health will escalate? Why is this regarded as “panic” when the effects are already only too obvious? And why is it regarded as “panic” to stipulate that whatever measures are taken must be balanced against the need to prevent social and economic disaster, and we should therefore be devoting ourselves to finding viable alternatives to existing practices as quickly as pragmatically possible?

Using wind and sun are very expensive and are not adequate solutions. Hydrogen is a dangerous substitute since it is so volatile a gas, but it offers a way to reduce carbon related sources.

DAVID: What is quite clear is China's ambition to rule the world. Drill baby, drill is a current answer to maintain strength. Climate policy becomes very secondary from that viewpoint with nukes everywhere.

dhw: This has nothing whatsoever to do with the need to change the current practices I have listed. Stop dodging.

World politics must be considered. Open your mind to their importance.