Skip to main content

A Hypothetical Debate

Image result for gasoline pump

Suppose it was your assignment, dear reader, to set up a debate for some conference about "Crude Oil Consumption in the United States."

Your debate, as part of that conference, would have to involve two reputable figures, two distinct points of view on that subject, and one proposition, on which your speakers would take respectively a "pro" and a "con" position.

What kind of speakers might you look for, and what kind of proposition could best express the opposition you'd be trying to bring out?

There are lots of approaches one might take of course....four occur to me.

1. Resolved: that in five years, the consumption of crude oil, per capita, will be greater than at present.

2. ... that in five years, the consumption of crude oil, overall, will be greater than at present.

3. ...that in five years, much of what is now accomplished through burning crude oil, or other carbon fuels, will be accomplished by alternative means.

4. ... that in five years, the inflation adjusted prices of crude oil and of its chemical derivatives, (gasoline, fuel oil, etc.) will be lower than they are at present.

Any of these might work to set up a fascinating debate, looking at different aspects of the question.

Why focus on the five year time horizon? Because that is a convenient proxy for the difference between talk of an upcoming tipping-point and talking in very speculative terms of flying cars and jet packs in the world of Tomorrowland.

Since the point is to set up a hypothetical pro/con debate, I'm indifferent as to whether the valence of any question is reversed. For example, "greater" could be changed to "lesser" in each of the first two questions, to turn the "pro" side into the "con" side. For the third question "only a little" might be substituted for "much" to the same effect.  Doesn't matter. These seem likely to be fruitful axes of debate.

I'd be very happy to hear comments from my faithful readers, and perhaps other questions in resolution format.


Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …