Climate Change and Pascal's Wager: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Climate Change and Pascal's Wager » Climate Change and Pascal's Wager

Climate Change and Pascal's Wager
What is the best decision using pascal's logic?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Climate Change and Pascal's Wager

Klingsor's goldfish
Awaiting triage

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 31, 2008
Location: A counterentropic eddy of spacetime
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 123

Posted 08/06/08 - 10:40 PM:	#11
Two points... 1) Risk Management 101. Identify the risk, assess its likelihood, assess its impact, take management measures commensurate with likelihood/impact. Climate change caused by our actions seems to split the climatological community (more towards yea than nay, but not certainly not unanimous). Impact would be pretty disastrous for humanity, though again there is a difference of opinion. Balanced judgement is probably to use our ingenuity to reduce the putative causes of warming, while monitoring to ensure that they are effective (and that the initial assessment was right!). The downside of controlling manmade environmental influences is almost certainly not as bad as suggested - 'the market' is a selfish meme, it will adapt. 2) The main problem with Pascal, I think, is that the change to behaviour is not a reasonable management measure. God doesn't save non-believers. Acting virtuously without believing is the wrong motivation therefore doesn't achieve the desired end.
Looks like freedom but it feels like death Its something in between I guess.

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5097

Posted 08/06/08 - 10:41 PM:	#12
The analogy is rather apt, but the way the boxes are filled in is biassed. Economic costs translate directly to deathes. Since everything that avoid death, health care, empolyment, food production you name it depends on economy. So the "Oh well" exclamation takes it rather lightly. Conversely, global warming might be true, but still not lead to a doom scenario. I agree with Caldwell that the analogy as it is stated now misrepresents things. Being righteous is no cost, except to yourself maybe. Economic costs are costs that affect others too.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 08/07/08 - 07:49 AM:	#13
Pascal's wager adapted to Global Warming has a name, it's called the precautionary principle. As for the hundred-times refuted claims of media manipulation, global economic recession,...etc, no point addressing them, it's like talking to a wall.

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1615

Posted 08/07/08 - 08:45 AM:	#14
True, but the precautionary principle is not without its critics. In a nutshell, it considers possible future costs (if we don't cut CO2 we may e.g. drown in rising sea levels), but it does not pay enough or any attention to possible future benefits foregone (if we do cut CO2 enough to stop the sea rising we may no longer be able to live in a civilised enough society to find technological solutions to global warming). Another example is GM. It's true that if we ban GM crops we won't have any of the possible harm that might result. But we also won't have any of the possible and as yet unforeseen benefits. A second problem is that the precautionary principle only applies in cases that are amenable to intervention. That is, we need to know how much global warming is attributable to human action. In short, even if we cut CO2, we may still drown.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 08/07/08 - 09:04 AM:	#15
I don't think rising sea level will kill us, it will simply have an economic cost largely superior to any modification of our behaviour. We can at least limit GW, nobody claim we are going to stop it, US does not need to emit two times more CO2 per capita than european countries to live decently. Some economic interests are dependent on CO2 emission, not civilization, we already have the technology to drastically cut CO2 emission, without endangering in any way our quality of life, and this technology can be improved fast, provided some investment in research, and oil or coal as a source of energy can be completely forgotten in a few decades, with no harm to the economy. GM is largely the same, it first of all, serves private economic interests, before serving humanity. I am not convinced at all of their utility, there are other alternatives to the production of food, which presents much less risk. Clearly though, GM are more profitable to some very powerful people who have some serious influence in political circles.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1002

Posted 08/07/08 - 09:23 AM:	#16
Aye, and I didn't write that "science is evil" section as an advocate, but more rather a note to some things that may make their equations very wrong. If you stated something like "This happens 19 times out of 20, 95% accuracy"; a part of their equation could make it " 19 times out of 20, 3% accuracy."

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 530

Posted 08/07/08 - 11:15 AM:	#17
If we cannot stop Global Warming, Enkidu, then Why Fight it? If I live a mortal Life, why should I repent for the Sin I was born with [or the Industry another age created]? I think what Robf130 is pointing out, much like Deftil said, we must be safe rather than sorry. It is, after all, the only logical conclusion that can be made on such infallible principles as "The End of The World Is Nigh!" And I have disagree with Tobias. He says being Righteous has no costs on others. What of the muther-trucking Crusades? It was very expensive to be Righteous in those days. Let us also not forget about the similarities between Carbon Credits and Papal Indulgences. I'm not sure if Michael Chricton was the First to say it, but the Idea is definitely reiterated here. The Green Movement has similar enough foundations that the Judeo-Christian worldview is basically replicated by the AGP worldview. It is sort of similar to that worldview that lead to the construction of the Pyramids. I really want to build a pyramid. That sounds FUN.
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1254

Posted 08/07/08 - 11:25 AM:	#18
ManiacJack wrote: If we cannot stop Global Warming, Enkidu, then Why Fight it? I don't know if we can stop it, I am not sure anybody knows whether we can or not, But to diminish its intensity and therefore limit its adverse consequences seems reasonable to me. Same logic that if you drive a car and realise you cannot avoid a wall, the most reasonable thing to do is still to brake rather than to accelerate or do nothing.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2726

Posted 08/07/08 - 11:47 AM:	#19
Pascal's wager already presumes that that righteous conduct is somehow going to be more rewarding on average. The same fault is also with the global warming analogy. Even if we accept the uncertainty of whether we can affect global warming or not, the superstitious hidden assumption is that the outcome of global warming is bad in the first place and not good, let a lone worse than economic harm. There must be an underlying science for the outcomes being how good or bad, and an underlying science for what the probabilities of each is, so where exactly is it? I don't see a science, I see a religion.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror
Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 5097

Posted 08/07/08 - 12:02 PM:	#20
A second problem is that the precautionary principle only applies in cases that are amenable to intervention. That is, we need to know how much global warming is attributable to human action. In short, even if we cut CO2, we may still drown. If we knew that the precautionary principle would no longer apply. It only applies in cases of scientific uncertainty. It is a catch 22 like principle.
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.