He has only the point that with his attrition-by-suffering, "we" (you can see with whom he identifies) will (probably) eventually adapt, etc.
I suspect he has no children.
I think it's a cruel, dumb point myself. Also utterly obvious. It's the brilliant Gubler "Well, good heavens, people adapt" plan for avoiding taking the steps necessary to reverse global warming, which, according to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "is likely to have wide-ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life."
Yeah. Good heavens, people by the millions die as we "adapt." Good heavens, people by the millions suffer as we "adapt." Good heavens, the people who survive it all and keep multiplying, have, by definition, adapted.
If the consensus of the community of scientists is right and global warming is real bad news. Which FT is pleased to take the risk isn't the case. But as for FT, it's no risk, because he doesn't care. Or is it that he doesn't believe it? Or is it that he believes it but thinks it's okay to count on adaptation by agonizing attrition, which will be an edifying spectacle to an Objectivist, especially in the hapless third world, btw. Who knows? He says one thing, then another.
I knew there were people who denied global warming, or denied that it carried a grave risk to health and life, but I didn't know that there were people who thought the following was a civilized statement:
<<<who is to say we just won't evolve ourselves to adapt to any climate condition until we have total weather control?>>>
I think that this blithe, banal and callous-in-its-implications speculation means simply that FT feels secure that he and his have enough money not to be the ones that will bite the dust, so his plan is to deny, to avoid being taxed to avert the risks.
I'm through with this subject. |
