This is atrocious. And I can't keep quiet. Every cell in my body screams.
Given the “experts’” own privileged "Western" life experience where each generation had it better than the previous (after all, economists claim that capitalism & market ideology all but eradicated poverty), there’s no ethical grounds for devaluing wellbeing in 2100. None At All.
It’s an unethical choice to let 2100 be worse off. And not even founded by human experience / habit. It’s a malicious disregard, in favour of own continued luxuries; with a subconscious resignation into"ah well, it's a given they'll be worse off bc WE won't rally for mitigation!"
The selection of "experts" consulted on this ethical choice bears question. I wasn’t consulted. I’m a mother. And more: if my soul were able to fathom the suffering of all beings our actions inflict upon them, I would want to take it from them and bear it myself.
Just so that I don’t have to know that my actions cause their suffering. That knowledge to me is unbearable. Un-Bear-Able!
But alas, I’m no academic, and more precisely, I’m no economist. Economist -that was the tiny subgroup of humanity asked for input on the questionnaire.
But alas, I’m no academic, and more precisely, I’m no economist. Economist -that was the tiny subgroup of humanity asked for input on the questionnaire.
A dubious selection.
Where are the churches, the mothers and fathers, the ones with war and refugee experience, the ones who’ll suffer most and soonest, where are the docs and nurses, the philosophers, the psychologists, the biologists and conservationists,
I could go on and on
Where are the churches, the mothers and fathers, the ones with war and refugee experience, the ones who’ll suffer most and soonest, where are the docs and nurses, the philosophers, the psychologists, the biologists and conservationists,
I could go on and on
The selection disqualifies AGAIN the study from being taken seriously. You disregard the society as a whole. You put economists’ opinions first. A subgroup of humanity that has a proven track record of whispering climate sabotage into politicians’ ears -for 25 years and counting!
I see pure arrogance and ignorance. And unwillingness to put an end to warming and suffering, just to not have to put the brakes on economists' own privileged lives. That's how I see your economist' gauge of climate ethics.
And I am angry. Very. Full of fear and anger.
222Gt⏰
And I am angry. Very. Full of fear and anger.
222Gt⏰
@threadreaderapp unroll
Ah, another subgroup of humanity is being asked. Only 100 more to go. And in all likelihood: 100 subgroups more for what is now called "the global south".
Maybe I misinterpreted them 77%. Maybe it means, being as well off as today, for 2100-ppl, it'll cost them less.
I've read some musing that global GDP is assumed to rise and hence, naturally, by 2100, humans overall will be better off, too.
It sounds silly.
But what do I know
I've read some musing that global GDP is assumed to rise and hence, naturally, by 2100, humans overall will be better off, too.
It sounds silly.
But what do I know
