“Climate prognostications: the skin of others in your game
John A. Dole IV
1

John, the world that you propose sounds fundamentally dispiriting. If climate scientists redirected their funding, they would no longer be climate scientists. Why is the act of donating to and participating in a cause somehow of lower worth? Why is this an all or nothing endeavor?

If placing *all* of your ‘skin in the game’ was required for making recommendations, politicians could no longer suggest to regulate businesses (they are not businessmen!), but businessmen could no longer participate in social programs. Men could not advocate for changing access to abortion (it’s the women involved, after all); civilians could not vote on whether their countries could go to war, and doctors could no longer tell their patients to cease smoking.

We can all talk about living up to our ideals, but that itself is a messy concept in a world where we all have complex, practical concerns. Ayn Rand cashed her social security check, and the Dalai Lama has angered. None of us are saints; none of us should be required to be a martyr either.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.