Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG

Kris Krieger wrote:
James Arthur wrote:

Kris Krieger wrote:

But in any event, that's a red herring. THe point is that, as with insurance, you can pay something now, or risk losing everything later
on.

The numbers MATTER. Insurance against the wrong problem is useless.

No, you said a number above, which referred in a very specific but unconstructive and inapplicable way, to my analogy with insurance.
>
If you disagree with teh analogy, then say so

I disagree with your analogy.

- but red-herring numbers pulled out of the air seem only to imply a nonexistent authority. I made an analogy to insurance; you pulled out some number out of your hat. If you have real numers that honestly and rationally compare long-term cost comparisons between (1) research, development, and pahsed implementation of pollutionn controls andalternative energy,
with
(2) continuing on with things as they are, including things like eventual health-care cost increases due to [pollution-related halth effects,
then offer the numbers. If you have none, don't pull numbers out of the air that are not intended to inform, but rather merely intended to denegrate an analogy/idea.

You're the one suggesting we should take <unnamed measures> as a
way of buying "insurance", against an unquantified, unknown
problem, that it's a good idea.

You've analogized that it's cheap and easy, like buying house
insurance. You've made the proposal, so I'd expect you to have
answers about the costs vs. benefits.

You asked what could possibly be wrong with taking out insurance, so
I pointed out, by analogy, that until you can a) estimate the cost
of those <unnamed> measures, and show b) they actually help
protect against a c) credible problem, you haven't made your case.

I said we're already adapting; you deny. Fine. If you want
to be gloomy, be gloomy. Priced SUVs recently? Or their makers'
stock prices?

Best wishes,
James Arthur
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG
    ... Insurance against the wrong problem is useless. ... to my analogy with insurance. ... eventually, the time comes to pay the ... to energy needs; no, conservation will not "solve it all", and no, wind ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: OT: NOT EVIL JUST WRONG
    ... Of course not - but you look at the risks, and you buy *insurance* ... to reduce *the risk* of AGW. ... brewing since at least teh 1970's. ... If you disagree with teh analogy, then say so - but red-herring numbers ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Why would anybody oppose single payer ?
    ... giving up low cost, high quality, on-demand, and physician choice. ... Insurance works because low risk coverees offset the cost of high ... "Doctors clamoring to come to Texas, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Why would anybody oppose single payer ?
    ... giving up low cost, high quality, on-demand, and physician choice. ... prescription drug plan. ... Insurance works because low risk coverees offset the cost of high ... "Doctors clamoring to come to Texas, ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Why would anybody oppose single payer ?
    ... giving up low cost, high quality, on-demand, and physician choice. ... Medicare was a first step. ... Insurance works because low risk coverees offset the cost of high risk ... More than 2,000 doctors awaiting Texas licenses, as patients wait to ...
    (soc.retirement)