F
freeRadical
Guest
It depends on what the “means” are. Is it imposing harsh economic burdens on the poor and middle class? And will these burdens have much effect on mitigating the damage?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Wait a minute. I’m having a really hard time following what you and estesbob think is the important part, because it changes with each post. First it was this post of yours that says that mitigating global warming requires communism or socialism. When I pointed out that was inaccurate because a common effort directed toward the common good is not communism but is approved by the catechism as a legitimate public activity, you switched tactics with this post and said that the problem was that the common good was often used to justify heinous crimes, and estesbob made the claim that mitigating an environmental problem does not fall under the Church’s definition of common good. When I showed this claim to be false, estesbob switched to saying that it isn’t a common good because the problem it supposedly solves is myth. Then you say it doesn’t matter if it is myth. If you and estesbob cannot defend just one of the points that I have challenged but keep jumping to unrelated arguments, it does not look good for your position.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What you are addressing is whether the means are fair or effective. You are not addressing how any of these means are used to justify ends, which was your claim.
F
freeRadical
Guest
But they are used to justify the end, the end being mitigating the damage of AGW and/or slowing it down and/or stopping it.
EDIT: Looking back over my posts, I see that I said it wrong. I meant to say “the end justifying the means” not “the means justifying the end”.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I was wondering if you meant it the other way around. So based on this clarification I would say this: Some mitigation measures may be unfair and some or all of them may be ineffective. I have never argued for any particular mitigation measure. But I don’t buy the claims that AGW is a hoax, or that attempts to deal with it are necessarily communistic or in conflict with the catechism. Why don’t you just say that AGW is scientifically wrong if that is what you believe? Why do you find it necessary to exaggerate your view to the point where it becomes ridiculous?
F
freeRadical
Guest
Because I don’t believe AGW is wrong. I just believe there isn’t much we can do to stop it (*) and most of the mitigation measures impose harsh economic burdens on the poor and middle class and, by necessity, require the subjugation of private property to the state or the community for the “common good”.
(*) Unless the world is willing to severely roll back their standard of living.
I don’t see where I have exaggerated my view to the point where it becomes ridiculous and I never said that all attempts to mitigate damage conflicts with the Church. I merely said that most measures have an “end justifying the means” mentality and require the subjugation of private property, Two things the Church does not support.
A
Arandur
Guest
I’d like to bring up again what estesbob posted from the Catechism on the “Common Good:”
Communism/socialism can be defined in many ways, but I think what is relevant to focus on here is that most proposed government intervention on climate change involves major high level, top-down policies. These are typically one-size-fits-all and made at the highest levels of government. They typically involve outlawing things or imposing costly regulations.
Such approaches tend to disregard the Principle of Subsidiarity. They tend to attack at least one of the fundamental rights of the person – to property.
They assault prosperity, typically in the worst way–by imposing costs that are heavily and disproportionately levied, ultimately, against the poor, those least able to afford it (in the form of higher utility costs, transportation costs, higher food costs, and costs of goods generally).
They even, through these costs and use of government funds, divert resources from addressing pressing issues in the hope (with very little certainty) of mitigating some nebulous future harm, thus directly affecting (negatively) peace, security, and prosperity now.
In at least these ways, such policies are typically very ill-advised, working against the common good as defined by the CCC.
And all for something very uncertain, as FreeRadical has been saying, and as I broke down in a list earlier in this thread.
While there still exists so much uncertainty about the degree of harm that may be caused; the degree of impact we are having to warming trends; the amount that we can actually stop or control future warming; the actual policies or actions we must take to do so; the cost of those policies to economies and to individuals; the political will and likelihood of implementing and sticking with such efforts globally; and the ability to measure our results, most of these big top-down policies should be vigorously opposed.
Humans are implementing incremental change naturally, through market-driven forces, with very little in the way of unavoidable, burdensome costs. Forcing change artificially causes burdens and disruption. Letting the change happen naturally doesn’t, and leaves resources free to allow us to do the one real and certain thing that we must be able to do if climate is changing at all:
ADAPT.
- Status