Arguments against the Deserving Rich:
Assuming some degree of inequality is compatible with the principle of fairness, on what basis would some people deserve more than others? In surveys and lab studies, participants have generally considered it fair to reward ability, effort, and moral behavior with more stuff. But when people are presented with hypothetical scenarios of economic good fortune, they're fine with "brute luck" as a source of riches. No begrudging the lottery winner.
Let's unpack what's so bad about inequality in and of itself. Say we eliminate poverty and create conditions that facilitate individual social mobility; healthcare is universal; housing is generally affordable...
The Japanese healthcare system does illustrate how regulation can sometimes be the friend of innovation. The government overseers set low reimbursement rates for MRIs. So what did the Japanese do? Develop cheap MRI machines. Create the right incentives and inventions will follow.
Here's a possible variation on the Fat Man version: A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you might be able to stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only chance to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge, hopefully onto the track, killing him for sure to possibly save five. Should you proceed?
I’m tempted to say “Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States” is a noble failure, a well-meaning endeavor of questionable value due to a few missteps. But I don’t believe it. What I believe is that the authors deliberately chose implausible worst-case assumptions because the resulting projections of economic damage would be more likely to spur policy action than more plausible middle-of-the-road assumptions.
...we may have already reached "peak farm" as “the ratio of arable land per unit of crop production shows improved efficiency of land use, the number of hectares of cropland [having] scarcely changed since 1990” (Ausubel, Wernick, & Waggoner, 2013). This despite an additional two billion mouths to feed in the last 25 years.
RCP8.5 also comes with a storyline that would be consistent with such high GHG concentration levels by the end of this century. The storyline is a set of socio-economic assumptions that provide a narrative for how we might get from here to there. The storylines aren’t carved in stone; different socio-economic developments could lead to the same climate change outcome – but to be taken seriously, a storyline has to be plausible.
[The authors] predict that by 2100 the poorest third of US counties, mostly in the south, will experiences significant damage due to climate-related effects on agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor. They project this damage will occur “under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5)”. In other words, the authors’ analysis is based on a particular global emissions scenario unfolding. If we are to put stock in their projections, we need to consider the plausibility of their assumptions. The output is only as good as its input.
...the authors don't explain what "Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5" is, except to say it's a "business-as-usual" emissions scenario. You can't really evaluate the paper without some idea of what RCP8.5 is and whether it's a likely scenario for global emissions trends.
There's no way you can go from making it easier to buy health insurance, or to incentivize buying health insurance, and get to universal coverage. Some people just can't or won't buy insurance. The US would still have millions uninsured if we had a completely voluntary system.
America used to be the mobile society. People would pick up and move to the next opportunity or adventure. Oregon Ho! Sure, moving could be scary - failure was always a possibility - and yet we took that risk time and again. Then we stopped. What happened?
Moral indignation has served us well throughout the evolution of our species, keeping free-riders and rule-breakers in check, maintaining group cohesion, helping us reproduce and thrive. It is deeply embedded in our nature. Yet moral indignation is a response tendency that gets us into all sorts of trouble. Like love of sweets, it is a natural inclination to be managed and restrained.
The purpose is to dazzle us. But dazzling doesn’t illuminate; quite the opposite: it overwhelms the vision. Dazzling blinds and confuses.
...dissent potentiates a process that may lead us closer to the truth of things. Even when dissent is stupid and wrong-headed, it can make you think.
The International Energy Agency has a nice list of policy recommendations to speed up adoption of energy-efficient technology and practices. They estimate that if implemented globally without delay, their proposed actions could save as much as 7.6 gigatonnes (Gt) CO2/year by 2030 – "almost 1.5 times current US annual CO2 emissions."
Canada and Finland have recently begun pilot studies designed to assess the feasibility of a universal basic income (UBI). Both studies involve providing a basic income to disadvantaged individuals for a substantial period of time. The Canadian study is set to last two years and the Finnish study three years. Payments are not means-tested and will continue for the duration of the study period regardless if the recipients find work or better employment.
Here we have the conflict between a moral imperative of treating people as ends in themselves and a pragmatic imperative of treating people as means to an end. But what if the pragmatic end is also a moral good?
Our neuronal networks are strengthened through repeated activation. When we repeatedly engage in a behavior, we strengthen the neural substrate underlying that behavior, including connections within the brain's attentional control system. That's because anything we do requires we attend to the world in specific ways, reflecting what matters to us in the moment: our goals, values, and concerns.
I am not a climate change skeptic although I have the utmost respect for those that keep the torch of skepticism alive (minus the cranks). Saying I'm not a skeptic doesn't mean I've read all the science, understand the physics, and evaluated the climate projections based on my extensive knowledge of climate models. It means I'm using a heuristic: when 90% (give or take) of a group of experts say something is so, it probably is so. Nothing to pat myself on the back about. Not going to crow: I am more science-y than thou.