4 ms·

It sounds like Pascal's wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager It is not a good sign if your worl

by nonbel 9y ago

It sounds like Pascal's wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this...

Stanish 9y ago
It's not as simple as that. Our economic model is objectively destroying life-giving and stability-maintaining ecosystems in many different ways. We really do need to rethink everything at a fundamental level to stop destroying the web of life. You think climate change is scary, talk to a soil scientist about what agriculture is doing to topsoil in the US, which developed over hundreds of thousands of years to be in some cases several hundred feet deep, and is now measured in inches... I don't accept every single catastrophic outcome predicted by many scientists, and I cede that there is great political gain to be made from catastrophic prediction in the name of grant funding, but the issue of whether we need to drastically change how we conceptualize the natural world and our place in it (starting with the often false distinctions drawn between natural and artificial, conservation and agriculture, urban and rural, etc.) is easy to see in my eyes. Many of the ways the current population of 7-10 billion humans live are objectively imperiling the life support systems of the planet, and that is a huge problem for us all. Each broken link makes the network more fragile and less capable of buffering shock events, producing clean water, air, food, medicine, fuel, etc. Additionally, as apex species, we have an enormously outsize effect on how these systems work (or don't). Thus our changing habits will have huge ramifications through that network, good or bad. It's like we are hanging from a tangle of threads above a ravine, and each thread that is broken brings us closer to falling, though no single one will certainly do it. Taken from a sufficiently atomistic perspective, and assuming the regeneration of those threads, breaking almost any single thread is acceptable. Taken as whole, the idea of breaking any of those threads is absurd and completely outweighed by the increased risk of falling. This is a mistake made by our current economic models which too often assume complete fungibility, regeneration, and replicability of natural systems (or don't even consider them at all). Tragedy of the commons. I guess my point is that it really doesn't boil down to Pascal's Wager except in the sense that everything does!
burke 9y ago
The reason Pascal's wager is bullshit is that it rests on two assumptions to convince non-believers: 1. Infinite badness of hell; 2. Infinitesimal possibility of religious truth. Reasoning about climate change doesn't really involve multiplying infinity by zero. There is more evidence to back up a non-zero chance of catastrophe, and we don't have to rely on inifinite badness to make action worthwhile. Finite badness does the trick just fine. Unlike Pascal's wager, the question of climate change action is rooted in knowable quantities. Unfortunately, a lot of these are still unknowns to a degree, and a lot of misinformation exists, making it difficult for non-experts to keep up.
- nonbel 9y ago
  Assuming that ice core data is being interpreted correctly, there is an almost guaranteed chance of catastrophic climate change sometime in the "near" future regardless of human impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg EDIT: Looking at that a bit closer, I get peak temperatures at ~ 412.5k, 322.5k, 237.5k, 127.5k, and 7.5k years ago.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  The other problem with Pascal's wager is widespread disagreement about what you really have to do to satisfy the alleged deity. Many religions claim that if you aren't a member of that particular religion, then you go to hell. Well, with all the different religions, that makes it pretty hard to choose the "correct" one, doesn't it? And if you're looking at the ways you have to limit your life and actions (e.g. not having premarital sex) to please this god, again, the different religions disagree hugely. Some religions say it's sinful to drink alcohol, others don't have this problem. Some say you can't eat pork or shellfish, again others disagree. Some religions say that you need to be completely celibate (I think the Shakers were like this), and not have any kids. So your odds of both choosing the "correct" religion and following its precepts acceptably are vanishingly small.
jefurii 9y ago
> "What if we do the good things that some religious book says we should do, avoid the bad, be decent human beings, and help others, and there's no afterlife to be rewarded by?" > It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this... Are you saying that it's not a good thing to have lived a good life and done good by your fellow humans?
- nonbel 9y ago
  Hmm, I'm having trouble figuring out your argument here. I see three premises: Premise A: Pascal's wager is based on sound reasoning. Premise B: People who live by pascals wager "live a good life", etc. Premise C: "Living a good life" is a desirable thing. Somehow you are arguing that if I reject premise A I must also reject premise C (if I were to act rationally), but I don't follow it.

by nonbel 9y ago

It sounds like Pascal's wager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this...

Stanish 9y ago

It's not as simple as that. Our economic model is objectively destroying life-giving and stability-maintaining ecosystems in many different ways. We really do need to rethink everything at a fundamental level to stop destroying the web of life. You think climate change is scary, talk to a soil scientist about what agriculture is doing to topsoil in the US, which developed over hundreds of thousands of years to be in some cases several hundred feet deep, and is now measured in inches... I don't accept every single catastrophic outcome predicted by many scientists, and I cede that there is great political gain to be made from catastrophic prediction in the name of grant funding, but the issue of whether we need to drastically change how we conceptualize the natural world and our place in it (starting with the often false distinctions drawn between natural and artificial, conservation and agriculture, urban and rural, etc.) is easy to see in my eyes. Many of the ways the current population of 7-10 billion humans live are objectively imperiling the life support systems of the planet, and that is a huge problem for us all. Each broken link makes the network more fragile and less capable of buffering shock events, producing clean water, air, food, medicine, fuel, etc. Additionally, as apex species, we have an enormously outsize effect on how these systems work (or don't). Thus our changing habits will have huge ramifications through that network, good or bad. It's like we are hanging from a tangle of threads above a ravine, and each thread that is broken brings us closer to falling, though no single one will certainly do it. Taken from a sufficiently atomistic perspective, and assuming the regeneration of those threads, breaking almost any single thread is acceptable. Taken as whole, the idea of breaking any of those threads is absurd and completely outweighed by the increased risk of falling. This is a mistake made by our current economic models which too often assume complete fungibility, regeneration, and replicability of natural systems (or don't even consider them at all). Tragedy of the commons. I guess my point is that it really doesn't boil down to Pascal's Wager except in the sense that everything does!

burke 9y ago

The reason Pascal's wager is bullshit is that it rests on two assumptions to convince non-believers: 1. Infinite badness of hell; 2. Infinitesimal possibility of religious truth. Reasoning about climate change doesn't really involve multiplying infinity by zero. There is more evidence to back up a non-zero chance of catastrophe, and we don't have to rely on inifinite badness to make action worthwhile. Finite badness does the trick just fine. Unlike Pascal's wager, the question of climate change action is rooted in knowable quantities. Unfortunately, a lot of these are still unknowns to a degree, and a lot of misinformation exists, making it difficult for non-experts to keep up.

nonbel 9y ago
Assuming that ice core data is being interpreted correctly, there is an almost guaranteed chance of catastrophic climate change sometime in the "near" future regardless of human impact: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg EDIT: Looking at that a bit closer, I get peak temperatures at ~ 412.5k, 322.5k, 237.5k, 127.5k, and 7.5k years ago.
Arizhel 9y ago
The other problem with Pascal's wager is widespread disagreement about what you really have to do to satisfy the alleged deity. Many religions claim that if you aren't a member of that particular religion, then you go to hell. Well, with all the different religions, that makes it pretty hard to choose the "correct" one, doesn't it? And if you're looking at the ways you have to limit your life and actions (e.g. not having premarital sex) to please this god, again, the different religions disagree hugely. Some religions say it's sinful to drink alcohol, others don't have this problem. Some say you can't eat pork or shellfish, again others disagree. Some religions say that you need to be completely celibate (I think the Shakers were like this), and not have any kids. So your odds of both choosing the "correct" religion and following its precepts acceptably are vanishingly small.

jefurii 9y ago

> "What if we do the good things that some religious book says we should do, avoid the bad, be decent human beings, and help others, and there's no afterlife to be rewarded by?" > It is not a good sign if your worldview rests on reasoning like this... Are you saying that it's not a good thing to have lived a good life and done good by your fellow humans?

nonbel 9y ago
Hmm, I'm having trouble figuring out your argument here. I see three premises: Premise A: Pascal's wager is based on sound reasoning. Premise B: People who live by pascals wager "live a good life", etc. Premise C: "Living a good life" is a desirable thing. Somehow you are arguing that if I reject premise A I must also reject premise C (if I were to act rationally), but I don't follow it.