If global warming gets worse, but people get enough richer, then they could end up better off.
Tautologically, yes. But the two hypotheses are not independent. Global warming is predicted to destroy wealth—that is the only reason we care about it.
If global warming gets worse, but people get enough richer, then they could end up better off. Tautologically, yes.
Tautologically, yes.
This is not tautological. Wealth is highly correlated with wellbeing but not logically equivalent.
Global warming is predicted to destroy wealth—that is the only reason we care about it.
It seems like you have redefined the meaning of some terms here.
The tautology lies in the word “enough”.
Tautologically, yes. But the two hypotheses are not independent. Global warming is predicted to destroy wealth—that is the only reason we care about it.
This is not tautological. Wealth is highly correlated with wellbeing but not logically equivalent.
It seems like you have redefined the meaning of some terms here.
The tautology lies in the word “enough”.