Wow. That is quite possibly the most sensible approach to the global warming debate that I've heard yet. Definitely worth watching, no matter your stance on the issue.

--
friction.fotografie | da prints | etsy prints

Thank everything for common sense! Great job, bud!

--
Please check out my club! <3 Fantasy-based, people's souls living in a fantasy world! ~St-Anne-Truth
ARE THERE OTHER ORGANS IN THE CAR?

c|T| Tea for two

Thank you!

--
....don't mind me, I only recently escaped the mental institute, but I'm fairly harmless...sometimes...<3 ~nut

{hyper}-ACTIVE ADMIN for:

~draco-hermione-club

I'll pass on your sentiments to Craven!

--
....don't mind me, I only recently escaped the mental institute, but I'm fairly harmless...sometimes...<3 ~nut

{hyper}-ACTIVE ADMIN for:

~draco-hermione-club

I have to say, that argument can be applied to nearly anything.

And, if this man is so amazing, why is he teaching high school?

He's good at making arguments that seem logical, but I'd leave the real thinking up to the real scientists.

--
^{_//LEMONTEA||MORE.ADDICTIVE.THAN.HEROIN_+''}

Someone on YouTube raised exactly the same point .. He resposed with (I'm copying the response because there aren't comment links like on deviantART)..

"Quite true. Good point.

So when sifting through what merits our response, we assign likelihoods to the scenarios. Then that likelihood can be multiplied by a factor which represents the impact of that event happening. This is called the "expected value" and is a well-established method for evaluating how much weight should be given to a possible scenario.

So here, climate change should be considered for two reasons. The first is that it the potential impact is huge enough it makes the "expected value" significant, even if the likelihood is extremely small.

And second, climate change has been well-studied, and it's likelihood has been very confidently established well beyond the "possible." Any claim otherwise would contradict a huge body of well-established science, and would be an "extraordinary claim," requiring "extraordinary evidence."

If you disagree with that, I'd ask what exactly would it look like for something to be considered as plausible enough to consider action. Before Sept. 11, no one in the mainstream would have considered the felling of the towers as plausible. Now we prepare for such things, because we see that, while the likelihood may be small, the potential impact is large enough to make our action seem worthwhile.

Thanks for not taking my word for it!"

I'd just like to add that the fact that he's a high school teacher (rather than a university professor?) doesn't make any less of his striving-to-be-simple argument..

--
~Mozilla

Well the argument just seems clever, but it's got a lot of faults. This utilitarianist argument features the same faults as any other argument produced by Mills or whomever else uses it. And the little 4 option choice chart has problems too.

1. It's not as simple as a yes or no, A or B. There's intermediates which have to be considered. He's using polar extremes to prove his points. The question is not if we invest money or not, it's HOW MUCH. It's not if we are right or wrong, it's HOW right and HOW wrong..

2. And, it only uses negative polar extremes. Where are the positive extremes? (And who measures good and bad? Our impeccable sense of human judgment?)

3. He says that we shouldn't use the rows, which we cannot know the outcome of. Unfortunately, to know how much to invest, we need to know if it's real. And while there's a great body of evidence, we still have to figure out how much to invest in what technologies. Throwing money at a problem doesn't mean we can fix it (as noted, we might make some more problems for ourselves too.) Further, we cannot predict what the administration would do with our money. As an extension to five, they'd probably embezzle it and use it in the poorest fashion humanly possible, ala every other thing we've ever tried to accomplish through our bloated bureaucracy.

1. Who is to say that what we THINK the greatest good is will indeed BE the greatest good?
For instance, maybe the effects of the Global Depression will be worse than those of the Global Warming (see 2).

2. This is because we cannot know the consequences beforehand, for if we could, we would be able to accurately predict the outcome of our effects. Instead, we are forced to trust in potentially inaccurate generalizations of previous activities. Unfortunately for us, this is a new situation which means we cannot study the outcome of a previous global warming caused by similar human factors.

For instance, what if our GUESS to invest money of any significant amount fails to do anything significant and we all die some horrible death? Well, not only did we throw the world into Global Depression, but then we get to be beaten all over again by Global Warming when we realized we failed. There is absolutely no way of knowing for certain that we could stop it -- even if the United States reformed, good luck trying to ruin the economies of the many industrial nations of the world.

3. A side problem is how do we measure the success of an outcome against another when we cannot know the outcome of the other because we can only see one outcome per one choice? We can't. So we HAVE to guess.

4. If indeed we could see both outcomes, who is to say what is better? Maybe the death of 90% of the human race would be in the interest of the greatest good? It doesn't sound like that, because of our own desire to preserve our lives, but it's quite possible that from an objective standpoint, there is a possibility that by having this happen, we will further humanity in the long run. As Bernard Williams put it, our personal values often supersede that of the intent of the greatest good.

5. If we choose a lottery ticket against any people's wills, we will be stifling a minority. As all men are created equal, that's a good way of striping away out democracy. Look at what the Patriot Act did for the greatest good of the people. Look what our concerns caused after 9/11. This lottery ticket approach will only give the government another way to control our rights.

So, to me, the situation is infinitely more complex that a four square grid.

I hope my response has made less of his striving-to-be-simple argument. Maybe a university professor would have seen this? Or acknowledged that it isn't as simple it sounds.

--
^{_//LEMONTEA||MORE.ADDICTIVE.THAN.HEROIN_+''}

I forgot to clarify the first #2.

2. And, it only uses negative polar extremes. Where are the positive extremes? (And who measures good and bad? Our impeccable sense of human judgment?)

I should have noted that this is positive extremes for ANY of the options, as well as negative extremes for ANY of the options. For example, box 1, global depression, may indeed have positive extremes to it. (Global Depression causes restructuring of worldwide economic community to improve the future, etc.).

Also, my numbering seems to repeat. It's intended to address the problems I have with his grid, and then the problems with his overall argument.

--
^{_//LEMONTEA||MORE.ADDICTIVE.THAN.HEROIN_+''}

Okay I'll try to reply to your comment but I think you should comment on his video to hear what he has got to say about it (because well that's why he has uploaded the video for, at the first place) ... I'd first like to put forward a couple of points

a) "Taking [proper] actions" will certainly not be done without a proper plan and enough research to determine what's to be done. It doesn't mean immediately throwing billions in poorly research plans or some arbitrary decisions.

b) For the issue to be properly addressed, I think vast changes in today's political scene has to happen (not only in the united states) and that's, in and on itself, a very difficult long process considering how profiteer-oriented it has become.

He's concerned with "how bad" things can go in each block. "How good" can they go is not of much concern here because if the actions to be taken result in state of "equilibrium" with no "improvement", this would be a success of a kind. Still wording here is really vague.

"For instance, maybe the effects of the Global Depression will be worse than those of the Global Warming"

In worst case scenarios, the former is a part of the latter (as he points out in the video.) I previously mentioned why, I think, he chose to be concerned with worst case scenarios primarily.

"If indeed we could see both outcomes, who is to say what is better? Maybe the death of 90% of the human race would be in the interest of the greatest good?"

Well, this sounds very much like an elitist pattern of thinking, which I strongly disagree with. Leaving people to die because it will be in the best "interests" of the rest turns the question from whether we will survive or not to who will survive and by what means.

I still maintain that the two points I raised above are the most important, at the moment, rather than studying purely hypothetical situations.

--
~Mozilla

I already submitted these concerns to him via a message on YouTube.

a) There is no certainty that any plan no matter how well researched can fix anything. But to formulate a plan in the first place, it will cost billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Some scientists say it's already too late: [link]

b) People are afraid of change and rapid political change does usually not come to a system that is, for the most part, keeping people happy, such as the United States and other nations ranked similarly by the UN.

Again, we don't even know how good or bad things can go. We can guess, but we can't know for certain. His worst case scenario may not even be the result, instead something far more subtle could be the result.

Carrying this logic, we again do not know if Global Depression would even be a part of Global Warming.

My opinion isn't elitist. It's just a simple argument in reasoning. We're obviously not objective because 1) we don't know all the facts, 2) we don't know the outcome, and 3) we're not strictly rational beings. I also strongly disagree with the idea of 90% of the population dying; that isn't the point. What if we cured Global Warming and a huge war started and everyone died, not just 90%? I mean, I'm saying there is no certainty as to what is the "best" option because we cannot and will not know. Even when it happens, we can't see both outcomes, so it's irrelevant.

I brought this entire point up because you said, "Leaving people to die because it will be in the best "interests" of the rest turns the question from whether we will survive or not to who will survive and by what means". So what are we doing by choosing the lottery ticket? If indeed a worse case scenario is a huge depression, obviously people will die in this choice. So who are we to choose the best "interests" of the rest? I pointed out the converse because it's true for the original argument as well!

This is a utilitarian argument. You will have to hurt a few for the greater good. That's how the argument works. So, we have to leave up the decision of what is in the best interest of the people to our arbitrary views of ethics? That's a lot of weight to put on your shoulders.

So far, everything we've discussed is a purely hypothetical situation. And it will continue to be until it happens.

--
^{_//LEMONTEA||MORE.ADDICTIVE.THAN.HEROIN_+''}