No offense taken. My main point though is that it doesn’t matter what I believe.
If it’s true it’s true. If there’s questionable bits, there’s questionable bits. But _my_ stance is that it’s practical to act as if it’s true.
Although I have to admit that jl – whom I often argue with on many issues, including this one – does make a valid point when I mentioned governments-doing-something.
He pointed out that it can lead to war. I hadn’t considered that.
For that possibility, I’d personally recommend (if anybody asked me) that local / provincial (state) / federal governments make positive changes WITHIN their own borders.
If the mission crosses international lines, then diplomacy must be the method of action. Convince. Debate. Talk it over.
But war-like things such as sanctions to force other countries to comply with the recommendations to fix things regarding global warming is something I’d recommend strongly _against_.
Why? There’s plenty to do within each country’s own borders first.
But the correlation/causation as well as confirmation bias has to always be taken into account.
Science often makes for terrible historians. Sorry, but it’s true.
The reasons for war and conflict are multivaried, complicated, messy.
People like to look for a SINGLE REASON for it all.
“It’s religion! look at the stats!”
“It’s global warming! look at the stats!”
“It’s oil! look at the stats!”
All of these things and more _are_ possible as singular causes or main causes. But it’s _more likely_ to me, from a historical point of view, that it’s EXACTLY as complicated as it appears to be.
You’re right. I share the same values. I grew up with “give a hoot, don’t pollute” campaigns and was a Boy Scout. I believe in leaving the place better than where you got there.
I looked into the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign a few months ago, because I was always a big believer in it. The garbage cans everywhere. Recycle bins. I believe in it.
I thought, “Oh good, this will be a controversial-free zone. Lemme find its history”.
Nope. Even THERE, there’s controversy.
There’s critics who say that the whole campaign, a cooperation between federal government and large corporations, were designed to put the onus of responsibility on recycling onto the INDIVIDUALS and _away from_ the corporations, who don’t have to follow the same rules.
Had something to do with glass bottle deposit revenues and stuff.
So I was a little disappointed. There’s a good chance they’re right. Responsibility shifted away from corps and towards individuals by starting a mission. A campaign. Something for us to believe in.
And, I did. And, I do.
But it was another reminder how annoying and complicated these things get, when they get to the level of public policy.[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]