Interesting Argument About Global Warming

[Grendel]

Personally, I always thought the whole global warming thing was a little bit overblown. Got to admit this guy makes a very compelling argument without debating any details.

*click*

Is he wrong ?

[TIGERassault]

Hmm...
The only thing that he sorta missed is that while the result of a bad thing in column B greatly outweighs it's counterpart of column A, so does the result of a good thing in B outweigh the one in A.
Or, at least, it does in that example. However, in a case like this, individuals putting in effort to trying to solve global warming would greatly increase their living standards, even if it does turn out not to matter!

[Lothar]

He's arguing Pascal's Wager, only instead of talking about God he's talking about Global Warming.

Pascal's Wager, regarding God, says this: you can't choose whether or not there's a God, there simply is or isn't; all you can choose is whether you believe in God. So you look at the consequences. If you choose belief, and there is a God, you get major hookups, and if there isn't, it really didn't cost you anything. If you choose disbelief, and there is a God, you get screwed, and if there isn't, you don't get much benefit. So the obvious choice is belief, right? It's the \"dominant strategy\" -- it gives you equal or better results regardless of the truth.

But Pascal's Wager is naive. What if there is a God, but not the one you believe in? What if you believe in a \"Santa Claus\" God but the real one is the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Then you might end up hopelessly screwed. Belief in a particular god-concept is no longer \"dominant\"; there's no one belief that always gives the best, or even halfway decent, results. Someone once gave the argument that, since there are so many God concepts to choose from, each one is only infinitessimally likely, so you should instead choose \"no God\", because the chances of getting a good result otherwise are minimal.

But I take exception to the statement that, since there are so many concepts, each one has only a tiny likelihood, except of course \"no God\" which the person I was arguing with said was 50%. Well, why is that one 50%? Why not Santa at 50%, Allah at 25%, No God at 20%, and everything else in the remaining 5%? That changes the equation an awful lot -- all of a sudden, belief in Santa with maybe some concession to Allah becomes your best option, because it's highly likely to give you a great result.

In general, when dealing with this modified version of Pascal's Wager wherein you have an unknown reality and multiple belief choices, you can use several strategies, such as:

1) Pick the strategy that avoids the worst of the worst cases. Specifically, pick the strategy that, if everything goes wrong, leaves you the least screwed. That's the strategy recommended in this video regarding global warming.
2) Pick the strategy that grants you the best of the best cases. If you're going to rely on chance, why not hope for the best? That's what some people argue about God nowadays -- since heaven is so great, pick the option that gives you a shot at it.
3) Somehow add up all of the values, with some probability weighting, and pick a strategy based on average value (or upper quartile, lower quartile, best chance of a positive result, etc.)

The video is recommending strategy 1. It's a valid strategy, but certainly not the only one. In particular, note strategy 3, and consider that it's the way we make many decisions already. Evaluate how likely or unlikely certain scenarios are, consider the risks and rewards, and pick accordingly.

With respect to global warming in particular, it's important to look at the possible choices we have, as well as the possible outcomes. It's not merely \"yes/no\" and \"global depression/happy or happy/cataclysm\". We can choose to take no action, or to use government regulation to force certain limited actions, or convince people to take those actions of their own accord, or go so far as to kill off most of humanity in order to ensure we won't contribute to climate change any more. And each choice carries with it a set of possible and probable outcomes. We should make our choices accordingly, in particular, with the understanding that we can change our minds in the future.

What I think this most strongly illustrates is the need to move away from the \"junk science\" that has so often plagued the GW debate. The more junk science we have, the harder it is to actually evaluate our choices, and the more likely it is people will opt for extremes (of \"no action\" or \"excessive action\") because they can't hope to make informed decisions. What we really need is sensible evaluation of the science, and sensible actions in response.

[Grendel]

Very nicely put IMHO. Can't find anything to add

[Genghis]

Well the video maker guy has 2 follow-up videos that address pretty much all these considerations. Seems like 1,000 other people had the same observations as Lothar, and the OP decided to answer them. Not that his answers are always satisfying, since of course there are no correct and proper answers, since if there were, nobody would be arguing.

[Lothar]

the video maker guy has 2 follow-up videos that address pretty much all these considerations.

Seeing as how it took me 9 and a half minutes to watch his first video, which could be summed up as "Pascal's Wager", I'm not really interested in watching him talk for another 19 minutes to give me 2 more sentences worth of material.

Can you summarize his answers? Does he say anything worthwhile?

[Flabby Chick]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Heh! never heard of it...interesting though. Meanwhile....

I don't think there's a difference between polluting the rivers and global warming.

I don't believe you can intellectualize environmentalism.

[Bet51987]

We learned that philosophical argument in high school and why the premise won't work. To ask an atheist to lower his risk, for example, would require him to induce a false belief.

Also, it forces you to pick the Christian God because.. \"Thou shalt have no other gods before me\".

Pascals Wager does not apply in Global Warming.

Bettina

[TIGERassault]

We learned that philosophical argument in high school and why the premise won't work. To ask an atheist to lower his risk, for example, would require him to induce a false belief.

Also, it forces you to pick the Christian God because.. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me".

Pascals Wager does not apply in Global Warming.

Bettina

Umm... two questions:
1: Why would the bible saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" force you into picking the Christian God?
2: Why doesn't it apply in Global Warming? And this would be as a question for Lothar too. Pascal's Wager in terms of God might not work so well, but I can't see so much why it wouldn't work for this case. He did say what there really is to lose from a bad decision, unlike Pascal.

[Foil]

Pascals Wager does not apply in Global Warming.

Correct (and I tend to agree with your evaluation of the weaknesses of Pascal's Wager in general).

You may be misunderstanding, though. Lothar did not say Pascal's Wager directly applies to global warming.

What he said is that the video reflected a similar strategy (trying to minimize one's risk of the very worst scenarios).


Edit:

1: Why would the bible saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" force you into picking the Christian God?

Pascal's Wager is worth discussing, but it should be split from this topic about global warming. ...Moderator?

[TIGERassault]

Edit:

1: Why would the bible saying "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" force you into picking the Christian God?

Pascal's Wager is worth discussing, but it should be split from this topic about global warming. ...Moderator?

...or just make a new topic.
CLICKIE

[Lothar]

I think people are misunderstanding me.

Pascal's Wager says, essentially, that you should pick belief or action X because it has better consequences than the alternative.

Whether applied to God (as in the original) or Global Warming (as in the video), Pascal's Wager fails for the following reasons:

1) There isn't just one single alternative; there are multiples, each of which carries its own benefits and risks

2) No choice is "dominant". That is, there isn't any choice that is guaranteed to beat the other choices, or even a choice that's guaranteed to never lead to tragedy.

3) You can't even evaluate what choices are best without knowing the relative probabilities of outcomes. Risk management doesn't work without good risk assessment.

It doesn't really matter what underlying phenomenon we're talking about; Pascal's Wager doesn't work.

-----

On the topic of environmentalism in general:

In reality we should do whatever we can to preserve our home planet. We should not fill it up with garbage. The really difficult part, as you noted, is figuring out what to do. I think a policy of lowering pollution of the environment in general (and of the atmosphere specifically) is a no-brainer though.

That's a very reasonable statement, and one I think we can all get on board with. But I don't think we need to sell it by talking about global warming and parading out overstated and overblown conclusions.

[Grendel]

Here's the followup -- *click*

[Duper]

and apparently, all it takes to win a Noble Peace Prize is make a movie about it. there goes the neighborhood.

[Grendel]

Thread dump -- split please.

[WillyP]

I think fighting global warming could bring economic benefits as well... or at least not be so bad as he makes it sound. New business techniques will be needed to make it happen, new technologies, new material. Where I work (custom cabinetmaking) we are constantly experimenting with leading edge 'green' materials. For example, all of Este-Lauder's(sp?)'Origins' cosmetics stores are being remodeled with flakeboard made from wheat chaff, and veneer man made from waste wood. Another project is MIT's solar house, the cabinets are made from sorghum. Another project is using bamboo plywood. Small steps, but done at an economical advantage, not a cost.