This video by a very well spoken guy who certainly watches Zefrank has made the rounds on the intarweb recently:
Interesting Argument About Global Warming - Watch more free videos
While he presents very well and I agree with the conclusion, his reasoning, in it's simplified form, isn't any better than Pascal's in his famous wager. He does note that the presentation is simplified and that you should definitely expand the grid to include as many dimensions and probabilities as you can handle, because what you will find is that the conclusion works out the same regardless.
That conclusion is that failing to appreciate and act on the impact of our Western lifestyle risks destruction of this civilization in our immediate future and potentially any future human civilization of any significant technological sophistication.
On the flip side, there is the idea that the shift in economic policy that is necessary to move current human civilization into an environmentally sustainable position is walking a tightrope over economic catastrophe, the result of which could very well be as bad as and lead directly to human-caused environmental catastrophe.
Think of it this way:
There. Now, you cannot control which row we are in, either there is global climate change or there is not, we cannot know for certain, and we cannot choose. In principle we can choose action or in action. The potential for destruction in the Action column depends on how skillfully we can remake our civilization. If we screw it up we might ruin everything anyway.
In practice action or inaction is difficult to choose because we, as a group, are currently selfish and self-absorbed, more interested in making sure that we will remain comfortable and well-fed than in taking action to avoid a potential certainty of destruction.
This is why I believe we are screwed. Think local, because in the future you won't have any other options.
Interesting Argument About Global Warming - Watch more free videos
While he presents very well and I agree with the conclusion, his reasoning, in it's simplified form, isn't any better than Pascal's in his famous wager. He does note that the presentation is simplified and that you should definitely expand the grid to include as many dimensions and probabilities as you can handle, because what you will find is that the conclusion works out the same regardless.
That conclusion is that failing to appreciate and act on the impact of our Western lifestyle risks destruction of this civilization in our immediate future and potentially any future human civilization of any significant technological sophistication.
On the flip side, there is the idea that the shift in economic policy that is necessary to move current human civilization into an environmentally sustainable position is walking a tightrope over economic catastrophe, the result of which could very well be as bad as and lead directly to human-caused environmental catastrophe.
Think of it this way:
| Inaction | Action | |
| No GW | Joy | Potential Destruction |
| GW | Certain Destruction | Potential Destruction |
There. Now, you cannot control which row we are in, either there is global climate change or there is not, we cannot know for certain, and we cannot choose. In principle we can choose action or in action. The potential for destruction in the Action column depends on how skillfully we can remake our civilization. If we screw it up we might ruin everything anyway.
In practice action or inaction is difficult to choose because we, as a group, are currently selfish and self-absorbed, more interested in making sure that we will remain comfortable and well-fed than in taking action to avoid a potential certainty of destruction.
This is why I believe we are screwed. Think local, because in the future you won't have any other options.
No comments:
Post a Comment