[quote]lucasa wrote:
Again, you miss my point;
- If I can arbitrarily ascribe them all the same probability, then I can arbitrarily assign them all the probability of zero and completely forgo any mitigation (at zero cost to boot!). If they all have the same probability but significantly different catastrophic outcomes, would you place a higher priority on the event that has the much more modest of outcomes?..[/quote]
Your first sentence is just patently false. There are two ways you could have taken my question but either way this statement doesnât make sense.
Letâs say you have a 60% chance of getting cancer, a %60 chance of breaking your arm in a car accident, and a %60 chance of getting a bacterial infection, thus âascribing them all the same probability.â You wouldnât then be able to assign them all a probability of zero, nor would you want to forgo mitigation (not smoking, wearing your seatbelt, getting vaccinated).
Or letâs say you took my question another way. You have a 33.3% chance of dying of cancer, a 33.3% chance of dying a broken arm, and a 33.3% chance of a dying of a bacterial infection. You still cannot assign these events a probability of zero, except in relative terms. But this wouldnât make you want to mitigate them any less. Itâs not like you wouldnât get vaccinated in this case. Furthermore, if this were true, you wouldnât need to invest any of your time in mitigating all the other causes of death that befall people.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
- Plague and cosmic events are hardly one-off events. Only the ones you recalled or manufactured in your mind are one-off events.
[/quote]
I feel like youâre being strategically obtuse here. Acting like a plague or a cosmic event are not one-off events, especially in the context in which we were discussing them is a little silly, but if I actually misunderstood you I apologize. I thought you were referring to a pandemic or huge impact that would kill all or nearly the entire world and leave the remaining in a very nasty place.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Along those same lines, I can point to a person that was killed by a disease or struck by a meteor. Itâs impossible to point to someone killed or who will be killed by AGW.[/quote]
Of course its impossible if you think the hypothesis of human caused climate change is completely false. This follows trivially from your position. However, it is true that it is more difficult to point the finger in such a concrete way at suffering caused by climate change. Its kinda like the difference between trying to prove that a murderer caught on tape killed someone and that a diet high in trans fat killed someone. But this obviously doesnât mean that diets high in trans fats are healthy for you.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Which takes priority; immediately benefiting humans or slowing the accumulation of CO2? Are people free to choose immediate benefits over limiting CO2 emissions every time? [/quote]
If youâre asking because you want my opinion then I suppose it would depend on the case, and I donât have the time or mathematical proficiency to do such a cost benefit analysis. But of course I think one should be done. Essentially I think that we should produce the greatest amount of positive sentient experience. Whichever of these would better achieve that wins.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Because right now we tell people that itâs in their great grandchildrenâs best interest that we spend all (both the people and the great grand childrenâs) their tax money on solar energy and electric car companies that fail. Weâve been doing it since the Carter Administration and the solar technology still isnât at a break even point, and people actually want it and are willing to pay a premium for it now (as long as they donât have to work at it). [/quote]
âALLâ of their tax money? Youâre just being hyperbolic now. Not to mention that there are successful electric cars, hybrid cars, and solar technology companies.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Me âLike Iâve said earlier in the thread, there is nothing zealous or even strange about taking the near unanimous consensus among experts as indicating a favorable probability of their positionâs veracity. Especially when those experts are scientists who are constantly peer-reviewed.â
True enough. There is a larger and tighter consensus of experts, all of whom are regularly peer reviewed, at the Vatican, why should I believe AGW and any associated catastrophe any more than the second coming?[/quote]
lucasa plz. Youâre better than this analogy. I feel almost idiotic pointing out why this is a specious comparison, but here goes. Letâs first take the claim that there is a consensus.
Youâd have to be talking about relative not absolute terms here. What percentage of religious experts believe in the specific doctrine of the vatican? Probably not too many if we consider all the worldâs religions, certainly not 97% of those who profess an opinion on the subject. You could even narrow it down to all the splintered sects of Christianity and still not have much agreement. This doesnât even consider all the long dead experts of lost religions (Roman, Greek, Norse, Egyptian etcâŠ).
Further, this disagreement isnât a dichotomous yes or no situation like that posed with climate change. Nearly all of the religions are mutually incompatible so that there is a vast spectrum of positions on offer.
I also took note to mention scientists here, which many peer-reviewed theologians are not. And no, I wonât get into a discussion about why I think science is a more effective truth finding mechanism than religious dogma.
Let me ask you this. Do you use vaccines, and antibiotics? Sun tan lotion? Supplements like fish oil and protein powder? Have you done in depth research and meta-analyses of all of these things w/r/t efficacy and safety to make sure there is an overwhelming scientific consensus? Why does this particular scientific consensus draw your skepticism?
[quote]lucasa wrote: Me âWetter is precisely one of the concerns.â
Wetter isnât precise, itâs actually kinda the opposite and itâs only a concern in certain contexts. Are we talking about a fictional context in the 50+ yr. future. [/quote]
Cool word play bro.
a story of Donora PA