Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus3 | Hacker News Reader

I was referring to the idea that you should actively shame people for not holding your same views. You're overplaying your hand in this, since it's not at all clear to average people that there even is a threat.

Say I did believe that climate change was a hoax. What then? Should I be excluded from the community? Should it be used to question my decisions, destroy my career, hound me for it? Should it follow me around?

I don't believe that, but your logic taken to its conclusion doesn't paint a pretty picture for the world. I wouldn't want people to behave like that to each other. Being able to disagree is a fundamental right, necessary for discourse and debate to work at all. If you vilify a position you lose the benefits of this.

View on HN

Two points: I asked why you think there are people here who don't believe in climate changing killing the planet right now, but you went down an orthogonal path; that second paragraph also veers way off track from the original context.

You're a nice person and try to be nice, but i will not acceed to giving the HN userbase that kind of coddling, because the people posting here are not average. Not about an issue of life death for the entire human race. You care about someone feeling sad. I care about whether children 2-3 generations down the line from now get to die a natural death. Do you think the former is more important than the latter?

You remind me of Barrett from FF7. They killin' the planet, Cloud! Good memories.

I think it's very far from obvious that children 2-3 generations from now will die horribly due to climate change. It's clear that it's a real phenomenon, but the impact remains to be seen. People have also been predicting doomsday scenarios roughly since people were people, yet the planet finds a way around them and life goes on.

It's not really about being nice. It's more like, if there were evidence that climate change will absolutely lead to large-scale death and destruction, then it wouldn't be necessary to make it a moral imperative to care about it. As it stands, it's very hard to prove that it will. And without proof, the idea that people should be shamed for being skeptical doesn't really add up.

> I think it's very far from obvious

I have nothing left to say to you then that i haven't said above.

Well, why do this? What's the point of alienating people for no reason? It's not realistic to show up with no evidence and claim that children will die horribly just to make your point.

Because there's exactly three types of people in this equation:

1. Those without the prerequisites and means to access on education. (Think people with no internet.)

2. Those who are willing to consider the horror of this directly, if reminded of it.

3. Those who do not want to it to be real and refuse to educate themselves on their own accord because it would mean confronting a literal existential horror.

You're 3. as evidenced by the fact that you ask me for evidence when you could just google, and find pages like this immediately: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Not really. I asked for evidence that climate change would lead directly to children dying in horrible ways, not that it exists.

Dad - you're drunk. Go home.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com