Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Gig601XLBuilder posted:

The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the
its proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of
destroying the economy.

The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is
within the control of human beings and has historically always
survived in one form or another. However, if it turns out that the
hypothesis regarding the human contribution to global climate change
is *right*, then the economy is completely irrelevant. So... what do
you see as the rational course of action?


First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE
KNOW IT.

The economy "as we know it" is in constant flux. It is not "as I knew it"
10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and is almost unrecoginizable
from 40 years ago considering that we were not owned lock stock and barrel
by foriegn investors then. We somehow survive, as "the economy" is
adaptable and resilient.

The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer support
human life.

Neil