Well, you didn't say it had to be a *written* argument. I really like this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
It would be nice if more people thought this way.
This video is by a man named Greg (username wonderingmind42). He is a high school science teacher, and he can explain ideas well and is proficient in science (two aspects of legitimation). First, he creates a chart with four scenarios: global warming is false and action is taken anyway, global warming is false and no action is taken, global warming is true and action is taken, and global warming is true and no action is taken. This is his seeing device for the argument: viewing the situation from a hypothetical standpoint.
Row A: GW is false & we act / GW is false & we don't act
Row B: GW is true & we act / GW is true & we don't act
Column A: GW is false & we act / GW is true & we act
Column B: GW is false & we don't act / GW is true & we don't act
The point of this video is this: it is more productive to think in terms of the columns rather than in terms of the rows. The question isn't really whether global warming is true or not, because it's so uncertain. But what we can decide on is whether we act or not. And the risk of not acting (if global warming is true) is greater than the risk of acting (if global warming is false).
With this thinking, books like State of Fear really don't matter. Who cares if you aren't fully convinced about global warming? Even the slightest possibility should cause you to take some sort of action. In my opinion, I'm not the hugest global warming advocate, but I do my share to use fewer resources. Maybe we can all use fewer resources and be more environmentally responsible, and rest easy that we are prepared for disaster if it happens to strike.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
After this reasoning was mentioned in class I told myself I needed to spread the word. Now seeing it mapped out, Descartes-style, I'm rearing to present it to my father (who listens to Rush Limbaugh, so...yeah). He can't really blow a hole in that argument.
ReplyDeleteI think people should strive to think like Greg does more often. He made excellent use of his Cartesian planes in mapping out the outcomes - although extreme - within each row and column to justify his argument and reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the whole global warming/now climate change crisis is how the advocates for/against the argument of global warming portray their opinions, and the techniques they use to try to persuade the public to side with them. It's gotten to be such a political issue more than an environmental one that I think a lot of people have decided to just say they don't care anymore because they're sick of the constant debating and bashing that the two parties constantly do to each other, rather than informing and educating us with real reasons why global warming should or should not be of concern.
Greg maps it out plain and simple - not taking action is the worst thing we could do, regardless if global warming is legitimate or not. And I think this theory can be applied to many other political and social problems as well. Not saying we all need to just grab every single problem by the horns and deal with it full-on, but surely wanting to be proactive rather than passive on something that could very well be very detrimental to our planet should be a no-brainer to everyone.
Thanks for posting this vid, Alyssa!