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

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 529

Posted 08/07/08 - 12:35 PM:	#21
I was contemplating sending this as a PM, Enkidu, but then I realized there isn't an exact subject matter that this thread pertains towards; as is, I'm on the evolved topic with you. We should hit the brakes and pray as the wall gets closer? Interestingly enough, I recently had a similar experience. I chose to swerve. I ended up denting my rear bumper [and spinning out across the highway] rather than losing my car [and potentially much worse stuff]- and I had about two seconds [guess: 20ft at 60mph?] to react to the Fridge in the middle of the road at night. Maybe it's just my personal philosophy, but when I see something that thinks it is going to stop me [stuff you think is going to stop you] I prefer to either go thru it or around it. While it may not have been 'good' to spin across the highway [Texas has really big trucks], it sure as hell was better than any other choice I could have made at that time. Such is my stance on AGW. We either go thru it and come out still on top[innovation, like usual, takes all the glory], or we go around the problem and it never happened[innovation, again, gets the glory]. This whole hit-the-brakes-as-we-escalate-towards-potential-doom doesn't fit well with me. In a side note, I hear congestion Tax has become 'popular' according to media sources, whatever that means. If there is potential Doom, and you are steering us towards it, change course or get the heck outta the the driver's seat. There is no destiny, fate, doom, or deterministic end for me on this planet. I would hope most of you would agree with such sentiment. Anywase, That's probably all I got for this subject.
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 - 12:46 PM:	#22
ManiacJack wrote: I was contemplating sending this as a PM, Enkidu, but then I realized there isn't an exact subject matter that this thread pertains towards; as is, I'm on the evolved topic with you. We should hit the brakes and pray as the wall gets closer? Interestingly enough, I recently had a similar experience. I chose to swerve. I ended up denting my rear bumper [and spinning out across the highway] rather than losing my car [and potentially much worse stuff]- and I had about two seconds [guess: 20ft at 60mph?] to react to the Fridge in the middle of the road at night. Maybe it's just my personal philosophy, but when I see something that thinks it is going to stop me [stuff you think is going to stop you] I prefer to either go thru it or around it. While it may not have been 'good' to spin across the highway [Texas has really big trucks], it sure as hell was better than any other choice I could have made at that time. Such is my stance on AGW. We either go thru it and come out still on top[innovation, like usual, takes all the glory], or we go around the problem and it never happened[innovation, again, gets the glory]. This whole hit-the-brakes-as-we-escalate-towards-potential-doom doesn't fit well with me. In a side note, I hear congestion Tax has become 'popular' according to media sources, whatever that means. If there is potential Doom, and you are steering us towards it, change course or get the heck outta the the driver's seat. There is no destiny, fate, doom, or deterministic end for me on this planet. I would hope most of you would agree with such sentiment. Anywase, That's probably all I got for this subject. Global Warming is even less a fridge than a wall, stop the analogy, they are just illustrative, and start looking at the problem for what it is. Innovations are already there, the only utility of oil and coal is to fill up bank accounts, they are not the best source of energy today. Edited by enkidu on 08/07/08 - 01:00 PM

enkidu
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 12:58 PM:	#23
keda wrote: 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. No, science does not define what is good and what is bad, that's morality, and in this case commonsense. The potential effect of global warming are fairly known, by the real science, they are desertification, increasing of the intensity of violent weather (tornadoes, cyclons), rise of the sea (that will entail large economic costs to prevent many large cities to be underwater), movements of population away from the equatorial areas that are likely to create political problems. Obviously some of these consequences are social evolutions and cannot be measured mathematically, assigning probabilities to them is therefore pointless. The science that concludes to Global Warming as having an anthropogenic cause is readily available on the net and in technical publications, to be fully understood, it however requires some level of knowledge in Physics and Mathematics. If you have this level, you will have no problem in understanding the global climate models used to compute global climate evolutions and acknowledge that they mostly lead to Global Warming.

keda
Ijon Tichy

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 02:01 PM:	#24
If you have this level, you will have no problem in understanding the global climate models used to compute global climate evolutions and acknowledge that they mostly lead to Global Warming. I'm just very skeptical about all these computer models trying to predict the behaviour of non linear systems. Most of them have been proven to be plain wrong. The climate is a non linear system that is very unpredictable and I'm simply not going to put my trust in a corrupt unaccountable dictatorial international organisation like the UN.
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

enkidu
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 02:10 PM:	#25
keda wrote: I'm just very skeptical about all these computer models trying to predict the behaviour of non linear systems. Most of them have been proven to be plain wrong. The climate is a non linear system that is very unpredictable and I'm simply not going to put my trust in a corrupt unaccountable dictatorial international organisation like the UN. If you prefer putting your trust in a few individuals, in need of popularity, who claim to have proven things that are unprovable, fine with me. Predicting the behaviour of non-linear systems is not something impossible within a reasonable margin of error, and it's the best science can do as of now.

keda
Ijon Tichy

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 03:00 PM:	#26
I'm going by the money rule. The more money involved, the more corrupt the system. Just look at Al Gore & Co. It would not be as bad if these guys could be held accountable, but that's not really the case. The honest individuals you find at the bottom of the pyramid, not at the top.
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

ManiacJack
aka W

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 29, 2008
Location: San Mucus, TX
Total Topics: 37
Total Posts: 529

Posted 08/07/08 - 05:13 PM:	#27
enkidu wrote: Global Warming is even less a fridge than a wall, stop the analogy, they are just illustrative, and start looking at the problem for what it is. Innovations are already there, the only utility of oil and coal is to fill up bank accounts, they are not the best source of energy today. I was illustrating- with an anecdote. You say we need to look at the problem for what it is, and hit it face first. You say the models are undoubtably good and that we must sacrifice together for a better tomorrow, right? No? Well that is what the Green Movement says; that's what everyone for AGW says, isn't it? Then You say we have solutions- which is obviously true- and also means that we don't actually have an AGW problem since solutions already exist. And Oil isn't even the best energy today, as you say; so why do we need to watch out [carbon] step? Maybe I'm smudging the edges too much. Why is AGW a problem at all? You said it yourself: It has already been solved. Done. ... and my puzzlement as to why ClimateChange is a political issue extends further...
Future Tense Passed Relief the Escapist wrote: Bullshit, self-deception, self-aggrandizement. Explains everything, really...

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 08/07/08 - 05:52 PM:	#28
Pascal's Wager, according to evidentialism and doxastic attitude is a no-win scenario. According to that branch, belief isn't a belief if you don't base it on some logic or evidence, it is simply delusional, irrational or contradictory. Climate change negates some of the logic, since there is plenty of compelling evidence that something is happening, but then you are stuck because just one person taking action isn't going to make a difference. It requires a vast majority taking an action, (or maybe just restraining), to make a difference. I would like to see a chart for Pascal's wager which laid out the various beliefs of different religions and dogmas, rather than just the blanket statement "belief that God exists" is sufficient for a "win". There are many different belief systems. Some believe that hell is only temporary, others might believe there is a second chance, after death, with some ultimate final evidence. If someone is only going to hell for any finite period, then disbelief isn't really that bad. For climate change, there seems to be a lot of emphasis on economic costs. I can see some very short-term economic boon potential in accepting the premise of climate change, even if it isn't going to happen. I could imagine a scenario where an elite group pretended an asteroid was headed for earth and there was enough time to build up technology to prevent that from happening. The economic and technological boon of getting ready for the impact, then pretending to remove the threat could have a profound sociological effect -- and be a great alternative to doing exactly the same thing when trying to justify a war effort. Maybe someone could make a chart which showed the benefits to the world in just addressing the potential threat of climate change and diverting the costs away from petty national wars.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 07:21 PM:	#29
keda wrote: I'm going by the money rule. The more money involved, the more corrupt the system. Just look at Al Gore & Co. It would not be as bad if these guys could be held accountable, but that's not really the case. The honest individuals you find at the bottom of the pyramid, not at the top. Go by whatever rule you wish, incidentally, there is much more money in oil companies and government that support them than in Al Gore & Co, whatever that stands for. ManiacJack wrote: You say we need to look at the problem for what it is, and hit it face first. You say the models are undoubtably good and that we must sacrifice together for a better tomorrow, right? No? Well that is what the Green Movement says; that's what everyone for AGW says, isn't it? Then You say we have solutions- which is obviously true- and also means that we don't actually have an AGW problem since solutions already exist. And Oil isn't even the best energy today, as you say; so why do we need to watch out [carbon] step? Maybe I'm smudging the edges too much. Why is AGW a problem at all? You said it yourself: It has already been solved. Done. ... and my puzzlement as to why ClimateChange is a political issue extends further... I did not talk about sacrifice, and I don't know what the "Green Movement" says, I don't even know what the "Green Movement" is, my guess is that it is something like Al Qaeda, a vague entity that merely exists at a rhetorical level, invented by oil and coal lobbies to scare people. There is no sacrifice to be made actually, just policies to be implemented, and a change of social behaviour, the american way of life is not the best in the world, many people live as well as americans, as comfortably by consuming two times less energy and emitting 3 times less CO2 per capita. some effort needs to be done on infrastructure, on lifestyles, but life is about change, evolution. The solutions exist, but they are not implemented, so they don't solve any problem, nothing is done. All remains to be done, and that's why it is a political issue, purely a political one actually, technology exists, the economy can adapt very fast without any problems, it is the political will that is lacking, thanks to oil and coal lobbyists, who have invented catastrophic scenarii of global recession, and green conspiracy.

keda
Ijon Tichy

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

Posted 08/07/08 - 08:25 PM:	#30
Go by whatever rule you wish, incidentally, there is much more money in oil companies and government that support them than in Al Gore & Co, whatever that stands for. Actually its the other way around. I bet you didn't know Al Gore is quite invested in the oil industry and just trying to make big profits. Oil isn't going away, its just going to be more "scarce" now and thus more profit. In conjunction with the peak oil hoax, the global warming hoax and the selectively enforced carbon tax it will make it just even more profitable. Its simple economics 101.
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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.