Is Anthropogenic Global Warming the Same as the Moral Code of Altruism?

Question

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Does the principal of altruism fit the values of the believers of AGW? Should we perform self sacrifice to save the planet? Wouldn't the world just be better off if man didn't exist? Wouldn't the destruction of man be the greatest gift we could give the planet?

Bob - Disagree. Reducing pollution and self interest are not exclusive. One does not have to sacrifice themselves for a clean environment.

You are talking about sacrificing others for the greater good. That's scary!

Is it better to sacrifice your children’s freedoms in the name of a clean planet? Or would you rather raise your kids so they would be free to develop new technology that reduces pollution?

Bob - What's wrong with the wind turbines GE makes, or Siemens for that matter?

Solar just isn't there. Solar produces just 1/10th of what wind does

Fixing "global warming" doesn't require sacrifice, it requires less gvmt. Let electric corporations compete for customers. Customers will demand clean power, the Free Markets work. Also Nuclear Power needs to be developed.

Developing Nuclear, allowing power companies to compete, and wind provide the best solutions to reduce ghg's.

And none of these requires any increasing of taxes or sacrificing any individual freedoms.

Answer 1

Yes, without a doubt.

Answer 2

i think of the CO2 debate stalled years in the past. maximum individuals ought to appreciate the CO2 warming technique. maximum understand that the solar is to blame for the changing climate circumstances interior the previous by using organic interactions of photograph voltaic radiation and greenhouse gases. This technique isn't that arduous to appreciate. The hard bit for many is the information of the forcing technique and the chemical reaction that happen by using warmth and rigidity created via the organic forcing technique. Now the ingredient is only as quickly as we've a information how those organic methods artwork that we can reflect and administration them. the main important progression in technologies might could desire to be the microscope and to confirm those organic methods happening interior the lab. As have been moved forward in time it somewhat is been the progression in with the ability to confirm issues smaller and smaller. I examine someplace that there is no regulations on Nano technologies and it somewhat is have been climate substitute has better from. in case you do no longer see climate substitute as a actuality then your no longer looking close sufficient. So don't be a mushroom get out of the dark an prolonged time and end eating BS come out of the dark and grow to be enlightened via in seek of the certainty to what we are seeing. Propaganda is protecting you interior the ineffective of night.

Answer 3

Decent question. Note that it has led some people to misunderstand your position. There's a message there.

My answer is that it is not the extreme form of altruism ("no right to exist" is farther than most people would take it) that you describe, but there are altruistic aspects to it.

Take me. I'm an old guy, unlikely to suffer the worst effects. But I care, not only because I care about my kids and grandkids, but because I've spent my career trying to improve the world (not my life, my career) and I'm not about to stop now.

I'd turn it around, and say those who want to block action on this are selfish. Many (perhaps most) are people who are rich by comparison to the rest of the world, and want to maintain the exact lifestyle they have now, no matter what the cost to others.

Wanting to fix global warming involves some altruism, but, for most people here, it also involves protecting their own economic well being from the huge costs of unmitigated global warming.

This one gets a star.

EDIT - Please don't take things to extremes. In answer after answer here I've pointed out that we don't have to go back to the Stone Age to fix this. But burning fossil fuels has some nasty side effects that we haven't properly taken into consideration (because of a lack of knowledge). Dealing with that will cost some money, although a manageable amount.

The US could clean up by developing the best technology to do this, of course. Right now the best technology for solar systems comes out of Japan, and for wind, Denmark (!). The US should be embarrassed about that.

Answer 4

Interesting question.

I do not believe that altruism generally exists in the extreme theoretical form that you describe it, so tying that to AGW does not work for me.

Altruism is more common in milder forms, such as caring for one's children, and it's generally a positive force in communities (which is why I would conclude that it developed). It's a survival skill. If it helps us survive anthopogenic global warming, good for us.

However, if the contemporary dialog around AGW ever gets dominated by such talk, rather than including science with its tradition of inviting scientific challenges, then as the saying goes, "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

Since altruism is a core value of Christianity, it will be interesting to see if the Pope's interest in stewardship of the environment (as expressed in April) starts to increase the discussion around AGW and altruism. That's not necessarily a bad thing as long as science doesn't get ditched along the way, and fortunately his recent comment about not following "ideology" did allow for acting on evidence (although he stopped short of embracing science, one might assume that evidence might come from there).

Muslim, Christian and Jewish Religious Leaders Unite to Fight Global Warming
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070522/aqtu176.html?.v=2

Does the Bible Predict Global Warming?
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=115449863

Since global overpopulation is directly linked to human impact on the planet, it will be interesting to see if even one religion reverses their position on advocacy of rampant family/population growth.

Answer 5

I don't except the premise of your question. Global Warming is not born of man. If global warming is as bad as you say, how does $87 million per year from the US to the UN stop it. The UN most go to war with the US to stop the cataclismic events you on the extreme left keep talking about.

Money is no substitute for human life. So, if you truely care about global warming, start a war with China, India and the US to stop it.

Answer 6

I remember way back in the '60's being told in an unkind way to "LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!" during the protests. I would say that it applies now more than it did back then!

"PLANET EARTH ! LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT !"

Self sacrifice in service to Planet Earth? Sure beats self extermination any day !