Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (604081)	3/17/2011 2:29:45 PM
From: Bill	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574730

If there is a finite chance global warming can destroy human life (infinity) on earth, one should do everything to avoid it. Not if there is a finite chance global cooling can destroy human life.

To: koan who wrote (604081)	3/17/2011 2:42:48 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574730

Koan, there are two things here that you should be aware of before you apply Pascal's Wager to global warming. First, look at the reasons why you choose not to believe in God. Obviously you don't believe that there is a finite chance to gain infinity. Or you don't believe that there is such a thing as "gaining infinity." But when it comes to global warming, you think there is a finite chance that a global catastrophe could occur. That could be the case, but there is also a finite chance that we could be invaded by aliens. Why not "do everything to avoid" that possibility, no matter how remote? One could come up with an infinite number of "infinity cases," assign some finite chance to each one occurring, then say we should do everything we can to avoid each one. At some point you have to decide which ones are worth it. Second, think about what Pascal's Wager does to the question at hand. The alternatives are absolute. You either believe in God or you don't. There is hardly any middle ground. The problem with applying Pascal's Wager to global warming is that you just made the question an "either/or" proposition, just like belief in God. There is hardly any middle ground. Either you believe in it or you don't. I think with global warming, there are lots of shades of grey to consider. In my opinion, the environment is one gigantic equilibrium, ever shifting and changing. CO2 buildup will affect how it shifts, but we will adapt. But that video eliminates all those shades of grey. It's just black-n-white to the guy pushing the religion of global warming. And that's where the application of Pascal's Wager falls apart. Tenchusatsu