> In that respect, I'm not interested in "tradeoffs", which sound to me like a justification or excuse to continue to destroy our one planet for the sake of short-term profit. But if there's some nuance that I'm missing here, then please explain. The only thing you ever mentioned was windmills hurting birds and dams hurting fish, which as you can probably guess, doesn't impress me or justify doing nothing about the environment.
I mentioned those things as examples of tradeoffs where the benefit outweighs the ecological impact. “Doing nothing about the environment” is a complete strawman that you made up for some reason, it certainly has nothing to do with anything I mentioned.
I don’t think I’m making a particularly nuanced point either, but you’re still not really grasping it or coherently responding to it, so I have no reason to think you’re willing and capable of engaging with anything more nuanced.
> I mentioned those things as examples of tradeoffs where the benefit outweighs the ecological impact. “Doing nothing about the environment” is a complete strawman that you made up for some reason, it certainly has nothing to do with anything I mentioned.
I keep asking, over and over, for you to give examples of tradeoffs where the cost/benefit goes the other way, but you steadfastly refuse to elaborate. All you do is complain that I'm misunderstanding you, while never elaborating on your view. If doing nothing about the environment is a strawman, then why don't you go ahead and explain your non-strawman position?
> I don’t think I’m making a particularly nuanced point either
You're not making any point. That's my point. You apparently just want me to say "You were right, Phil, and I was wrong", despite my not even knowing what the heck you're supposed to be right about, except the totally vague, handwavey "tradeoffs exists".
Ok, fine. Tradeoffs exists. Are you happy now? But that doesn't really get us anywhere or change anything in the argument.
You asked, "How do you plan to provide food, energy, housing, and health care to eight billion people?" Can we feed and house an unlimited number of humans? No. Can we feed and house the current number of humans? Yes, I believe so. We already produce vastly more consumer goods than is necessary for this basic purpose, but we refuse to distribute them equitably. In any case, if for some reason we can't adequately feed and house the current number of humans, the answer is certainly not Mars, which doesn't support human life at all and wouldn't help even a tiny bit to feed or house current Earth humans. The cost of feeding and housing a human on Mars is, as it were, astronomically greater than the cost of feeding and housing a human on Earth.
One answer would be population control, strictly limiting new births. There's a tradeoff for you. But as I already said, I don't think the basics are really our biggest problem: "We have rampant, insatiable consumerism..."
> I keep asking, over and over, for you to give examples of tradeoffs where the cost/benefit goes the other way, but you steadfastly refuse to elaborate.
You haven't, actually. But now that you finally have, I think the use of coal to generate electricity would be an example that goes the other way.
More generally, carbon taxes and similar measures, like the cap-and-trade systems used for other emissions, are IMO a good policy mechanism for controlling ecological costs according to cost-benefit tradeoffs. I don't think anyone is smart enough to centrally plan these kinds of economic decisions, so it's good to use these policies to make the market work for us in these instances.
> All you do is complain that I'm misunderstanding you, while never elaborating on your view.
When you keep misrepresenting what I've already said, I'm going to go back and try and clarify the points that you missed instead of moving on. If you're going to continue making the same misunderstandings, I'm going to get frustrated and give up.
> Ok, fine. Tradeoffs exists. Are you happy now? But that doesn't really get us anywhere or change anything in the argument.
You've spent the past three days disingenuously arguing against the point that tradeoffs exist. Now you've conceded the point. I'd say that's progress, and I'm going to leave it at that because I don't think you're engaging in good faith here, and I suspect that if we continue, you're just going to circle back to claiming that I was "concern trolling" about renewable energy again even though I've clarified that point more than once.
Me: "How do you plan it?" "If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant?" "You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way." "I'm still waiting for the nuance that you mention." "But if there's some nuance that I'm missing here, then please explain. The only thing you ever mentioned was windmills hurting birds and dams hurting fish"
> But now that you finally have, I think the use of coal to generate electricity would be an example that goes the other way.
> You've spent the past three days disingenuously arguing against the point that tradeoffs exist. Now you've conceded the point.
From my perspective, you've spent the past three days hiding your real views in order to get me to get me to concede a point that in most circumstances would not be worth even mentioning, like 1+1=2. Why? Why did you place so much importance on that, on the (purposely?) vague "tradeoffs exist", unless you believed that my conceding the point commits me to other things that are favorable to your own argument and views? There's a rather simple and obvious reason why I've been resisting what you called "one of the central points, which was Environmental issues are a question of tradeoffs and cost-benefits." The reason I've resisted is that I want to know exactly what I'm agreeing to by conceding that point, and you've refused to say until now. And guess what, I do not agree about coal. So I think I was justified in resisting your point. I definitely don't agree with a laissez-faire market-based approach that always leads to the tragedy of the commons. I think "carbon offsets" are a joke and nothing more than a system to pay to pollute, as usual allowing the wealthiest to do nothing and get away with murder.
> Me: "How do you plan it?" "If there's supposed to be a moral to the point about tradeoffs, then why not directly talk about what it's supposed to be, rather than mentioning little tangents that are largely irrelevant?" "You really need to elaborate to explain how this basic point illuminates the current discussion in any way." "I'm still waiting for the nuance that you mention." "But if there's some nuance that I'm missing here, then please explain. The only thing you ever mentioned was windmills hurting birds and dams hurting fish"
None of these quotes actually contain the question, “what are some tradeoffs that would go the other way?”.
> Why? Why did you place so much importance on that, on the (purposely?) vague "tradeoffs exist"
Because your apocalyptic rants are very, very absolutist and seem to exclude the very possibility of tradeoffs. You are right that it’s a 1+1=2 type point, but you were passionately ranting that 1+1=11. I was trying to introduce some nuance into the conversation, and then you freaked out.
> And guess what, I do not agree about coal.
You don’t agree with me that we should phase out coal power plants? That makes absolutely no sense given your doomsday ranting.
Oh, I think I see what happened here. We agreed, I think, on hydroelectric dams as a case where the tradeoff favors building or maintaining the power plant. You asked for a tradeoff that went the other way, and that’s when I mentioned coal. See, hydroelectric goes the way of “let’s keep the power plant running” while coal goes the other way—i.e. not keeping that power plant operational. Or do you think we should phase out hydroelectric? You’re not making any sense here.
I mentioned those things as examples of tradeoffs where the benefit outweighs the ecological impact. “Doing nothing about the environment” is a complete strawman that you made up for some reason, it certainly has nothing to do with anything I mentioned.
I don’t think I’m making a particularly nuanced point either, but you’re still not really grasping it or coherently responding to it, so I have no reason to think you’re willing and capable of engaging with anything more nuanced.