you'd probably consider me a dogmatic liberal, but i actually watched this video. even beforehand, i agreed with the moral premise -- yes, totally, our use of fossil fuels has been a boon to society, has lifted many people out of poverty, has reduced hunger, etc...
i think there are also undeniable harms as a result of our energy policy. for instance, it has enabled oppressive and murderous regimes like the saudis, and pollution associated with fossil fuels have poisoned people and ecosystems.
so, the question, i guess, is -- on balance, are we more likely to benefit or to suffer from the continued use of fossil fuels? i think you and i would probably differ in this assessment. the question is, why?
the answer probably comes down to epistemology. my tendency, in areas where i'm largely ignorant, is to defer to the consensus expert opinion. it seems like you follow a different algorithm. i'm curious, why do you believe alex epstein (who, in the linked video, says "i was not trained remotely as an energy expert") vs, say, james hansen (who probably has more relevant credentials as well as a powerful history of successful predictions)?
i think there are also undeniable harms as a result of our energy policy. for instance, it has enabled oppressive and murderous regimes like the saudis, and pollution associated with fossil fuels have poisoned people and ecosystems.
so, the question, i guess, is -- on balance, are we more likely to benefit or to suffer from the continued use of fossil fuels? i think you and i would probably differ in this assessment. the question is, why?
the answer probably comes down to epistemology. my tendency, in areas where i'm largely ignorant, is to defer to the consensus expert opinion. it seems like you follow a different algorithm. i'm curious, why do you believe alex epstein (who, in the linked video, says "i was not trained remotely as an energy expert") vs, say, james hansen (who probably has more relevant credentials as well as a powerful history of successful predictions)?