why would you even think that..??? 🤔

DrafterX wrote:

No, I said that this is so important that we need to do something about it, even if we only consider it to be a possible problem, because if it is a real problem by the time we realize that it may be to late. Obviously you would have to read between the lines to get all of that.

gryphonms wrote:

TG, I do not agree with federal anything. In fact in many ways for you and I it is a meaningless debate. From reading other articles, please don't ask for reference as I do not remember, the true danger point is hundreds if not thousands of years away. I would want any solutions to come from scientific study that has no agenda attached to it. Even if the possibility of great environmental damage is minimal I do not want to take that risk for future generations. I know this is very Don Quixote like and will seem incorrect to many people, but it does not change the fact that this is what I feel. I would not trust the government on this in any way shape or form.

gryphonms wrote:

My amusement with the environment is the same as my amusement with inheritance. They both tend to highlight the lies people tell. Everyone says they love their children, but when you look at their actions from both an environmental policy standpoint, and an economic standpoint... they don't. At least not as much as they love themselves. And that makes me giggle on the inside.

On an economics side, inheritance laws/taxes are pretty straightforward. If you wait till you're dead, your stuff gets taxed. Alternatively, you can reduce the tax and increase the transfer of wealth to your children by giving them the maximum non-taxable monetary gift every year, until either you've disbursed all your money or you die. If people really wanted to maximize their children's happiness over their own, this would be much more popular than it is. People lie. they actually value their own happiness over their children's.

On the environmental side, you see the same thing. A risk has been identified. One can work to minimize that risk (yes Tail, even if man contributes some small percentage to that risk, your actions can reduce it by a percentage of a percentage)... but many people don't want to. Even if you honestly believed it was a natural phenomenon, then one would assume that their love for their children and grandchildren would inspire them to demand a scientific solution to the problem (people are awfully quick to demand a scientific cure to diseases which impact them directly). But they don't. Because it would cost more money and effort in the NOW, without benefiting them directly, only their offspring.

Conclusion. People only love their offspring as long as loving them doesn't cost them any money.

I really love reading these threads.

victor809 wrote:

You can spin them with the best, vic, but you're so far off base that it's comical.
First, you equate "love and happiness" with money. No wonder you haven't found someone to incubate your DNA.
Then you think that a potentially infinitesimal effect should prompt one to mortgage the future. Because if you don't then you don't love them as much as claimed.

You're a smart dude. But it shows-to-go-ya that maturity and common sense are not learned in a classroom.

tailgater wrote:

Tail... you are incorrect on this one. First off, the concept of "maximizing happiness" is an economic concept. Don't think that I'm interjecting my own personal beliefs regarding love and happiness here. This is simple economics, not psychology. Second, assuming that you have a problem with "love and happiness" being equated with money, you forget that there is no trade off here. The parents are still the same people who have treated their children whatever way they've treated them their whole life. The only decision being made at the moment is "Do I give my children a percentage of this money now, so that they can receive 100% of it, or do I keep the money for myself and when my children get it, they will only receive 75% of it (or whatever the tax rate is)?" They are still going to hug their kids just as much as before. But they are making a decision as to whether their kids will have a maximal amount of money now, or a smaller amount later (and using it themselves in the meantime). Most people apparently choose to use it themselves and give their kids less at a later time.

Secondly, you're assuming that there is some sort of "mortgaging of the future" for a "potentially infinitesimal effect". You do know what another word for "potentially infinitesimal effect" is, right? "Potentially enormous effect". seriously, that's like the most meaningless statement. you're claiming that this unknown fix to an environmental problem is 1, going to mortgage the future (... without even seeing it you know this) and 2, may have the potential chance to have a small effect, or may have the potential chance to have a medium effect, or may have the potential chance of having a huge effect.

Your answer smacks of a lack of caring for your kids. I mean, if I had kids... and if I liked them (lets not get too hasty... they'd likely be sh#theads) my answer would be something like "huh, well, we should probably find a way to fix that... and if it's going to be really expensive, perhaps we should find a way to cut costs elsewhere... maybe we should involve other nations in resolving the issue. Hey, I wonder if there's a way I could make money off this so I could increase the amount of money I can leave to my kids too." Or something to that extent, I don't know... I'm sure 98.2% of kids are sticky little sh@ts, so I really don't blame parents for not liking them that much. I just find the hypocrisy amusing. :)

victor809 wrote: