4 ms·

That's my point. The limits on our epistomological capacity are greater than advertised. Sadly, this is not a trivial insight. The obstacles to clairvoyance pr

That's my point. The limits on our epistomological capacity are greater than advertised. Sadly, this is not a trivial insight. The obstacles to clairvoyance privilege immediacy over wisdom, because it radically limits the number of possible permutations. The solution to uncertainty is not an obsessive focus on one discrete risk, like anthropogenic climate change. Instead, it necessitates a focus on the factors that provide the most robust protection against a broad array of risks. Objectively, the single factor with the greatest relevance to the entire body of existential threats is economic growth or, at minimum, annual economic productive capacity, for it enables effective adaptive responses to myriad crises.

icebraining 11y ago
The limits on our epistomological capacity are greater than advertised. I would say that's because the obvious is assumed, so there's no need to advertise it. Nobody expects the IPCC prevision to hold if a singular event happens, so what would be the point of underlying that fact? The solution to uncertainty is not an obsessive focus on one discrete risk, like anthropogenic climate change. It's the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, what do you expect them to focus on? You wrote: "The IPCC's failure to account for this effect, which I believe in quite strongly, does not inspire confidence in the reliability of its other data." But there is no reason for them to account for something that can't be accounted, and it makes no sense to criticize them for focusing on what they've been created to focus on.