"Climate Change and Quality of Life"
Abstract: Philosophy of science has a synthetic as well as analytic vocation, for example, in bringing together results from diverse domains of scientific research in ways that those domains have yet to do on their own. Philosophy is not an “all purpose” expertise, but it might be equipped by its distinctive methods to pose questions and make connections in ways that bear on issues of substantive empirical or normative significance. In that spirit, we can ask: The science and neuroscience of affect have advanced considerably in recent decades, as has the large empirical literature on “subjective well-being”—yet the two are less integrated than perhaps they could be. At the same time, increasingly stark concerns are being posed by climate science about what might be needed to avoid catastrophic effects of anthropogenic climate changes. Apparently standing in the way of making an effective response to these concerns about climate change are two supposed “trade-offs” that render effective responses unlikely to gain adequate support—a “climate vs. economy” trade-off that brings with it an “action on climate change vs. maintaining quality of life” trade-off. But might a synthetic perspective on “subjective well-being” enable us to see that some mistaken assumptions have contributed to these alleged “trade-offs”—whether the climate change in question is chronic (e.g., global warming) or acute (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic)?
Peter Railton is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan.
This talk is sponsored by the Society for the Philosophy of Science.
