4 ms·

There's an argument that models of the Earth's climate can not be made especially accurate. This is because of chaotic behaviour in the underlying differential

There's an argument that models of the Earth's climate can not be made especially accurate. This is because of chaotic behaviour in the underlying differential equations, and the likely presence of unknown factors that influence the Earth's climate but are not present in these models. But this is actually an argument in favour of reducing carbon emissions. If we're dealing with a system we can't understand, where messing with it could cause immense damage to humankind, then maybe that's enough of a reason to stop messing with it. In general, whenever you're taking a risk with a potentially massive downside, where the outcome is hard to predict (because of chaos, "unknown unknowns"), then you should stop taking that risk. _________________________________________ Regarding what to do about climate change, Taleb has a theory called "minority rule" that could help here. It says that an intransigent minority, maybe around ~1% of people, can force a passive majority to do the things they want. A good example of this is kosher / halal food in the US / Europe, where an intransigent minority of people have forced a large percentage of food to be certified kosher / halal, perhaps unintentionally. As such, the solution to reducing emissions might be to set up an environmental "beth din" which certifies whether a product is "environmentally kosher" or not. If an intransigent minority only consumes products that are certified environmentally kosher, the passive majority will fall in line.

war1025 8y ago
I believe your first point is also in line with what Taleb has said on the subject. We don't know what is going to happen, so it's best not to risk it. I think he called in the Precautionary Principle. The thing that irritates a lot of people (me included) is that these articles imply that we do know what is going to happen. We don't. That's all the more reason to reduce emissions and stop destroying habitats.
ThomPete 8y ago
You have to dig deeper to make the right analysis here, your view is very 1st world-centric. To the poor people living right now, they are already living with their life at stake to them it's not an actual argument. They need access to cheap reliable energy right now and frankly, don't care about climate change. Talebs minority rule is not a universal rule it's a contextual rule which is important to understand.
- true_religion 8y ago
  Poor people globally are consuming an order of magnitude less energy than rich people in rich counties. Honestly, excluding them from this analysis makes sense because of this, and additionally because we have no way of affecting change outside of our own nations.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Thats not the point. The point is that they cant use our fancy solar grids for anything, they are trying to make it to the next day and ex coal and oil are more useful to them right now than any discussion about climate change, mother nature is already killing them Excluding them is antihuman.
- ethiclub 8y ago
  The original poster did not necessarily mean to force such products on the entire world population. Wealthy consumers are able to fund technologies. Wealthy consumers are also able to be more discerning with purchases. In the same manner as many nations skipped industrialization and computing stages, we can do the same with eco-friendly products. When Africa was ready, it procured mobile phones, not desktop computers. Precisely as per the Tesla business model, it is sensible to target 'rich' discerning consumers to drive legislation and production in order to scale & mature it for future consumers.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Wealthy consumers are a fraction of the problem, its the industries that support all of us which are the real poluters and there is nothing even close to replacing that, not even close.
    - ethiclub 8y ago
      >Wealthy consumers are a fraction of the problem Agreed. It's still a model that provides an entrance point to wide distribution being possible. (Legislatively, economically, general awareness). It's not suitable as a single solution to go all-in on - As long as this isn't treated as a false-dilemma and solely relied upon, it has value.
gaius 8y ago
where an intransigent minority of people have forced a large percentage of food to be certified This is very specific to tolerant Western culture. A 1% minority anywhere else in the world would be at best ignored and more likely steamrollered into conformity.
ethiclub 8y ago
> As such, the solution to reducing emissions might be to set up an environmental "beth din" which certifies whether a product is "environmentally kosher" or not. If an intransigent minority only consumes products that are certified environmentally kosher, the passive majority will fall in line Further: A. Organizations being held accountable by external audit will be far more likely to engage in ethical behavior than those with internal audits (internal boards are more subject to bias and likely have less access to expertise). B. This could reduce 'greenwashing' and other exploitative claims over time. C. The 'intransigent minority' (being willing to invest in such products) fund the initial growth of products, allowing them to gain economies of scale over time. Prices can then lower, and more consumers are then willing to purchase said products.

war1025 8y ago

I believe your first point is also in line with what Taleb has said on the subject. We don't know what is going to happen, so it's best not to risk it. I think he called in the Precautionary Principle. The thing that irritates a lot of people (me included) is that these articles imply that we do know what is going to happen. We don't. That's all the more reason to reduce emissions and stop destroying habitats.

ThomPete 8y ago

You have to dig deeper to make the right analysis here, your view is very 1st world-centric. To the poor people living right now, they are already living with their life at stake to them it's not an actual argument. They need access to cheap reliable energy right now and frankly, don't care about climate change. Talebs minority rule is not a universal rule it's a contextual rule which is important to understand.

true_religion 8y ago
Poor people globally are consuming an order of magnitude less energy than rich people in rich counties. Honestly, excluding them from this analysis makes sense because of this, and additionally because we have no way of affecting change outside of our own nations.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Thats not the point. The point is that they cant use our fancy solar grids for anything, they are trying to make it to the next day and ex coal and oil are more useful to them right now than any discussion about climate change, mother nature is already killing them Excluding them is antihuman.
ethiclub 8y ago
The original poster did not necessarily mean to force such products on the entire world population. Wealthy consumers are able to fund technologies. Wealthy consumers are also able to be more discerning with purchases. In the same manner as many nations skipped industrialization and computing stages, we can do the same with eco-friendly products. When Africa was ready, it procured mobile phones, not desktop computers. Precisely as per the Tesla business model, it is sensible to target 'rich' discerning consumers to drive legislation and production in order to scale & mature it for future consumers.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Wealthy consumers are a fraction of the problem, its the industries that support all of us which are the real poluters and there is nothing even close to replacing that, not even close.
  - ethiclub 8y ago
    >Wealthy consumers are a fraction of the problem Agreed. It's still a model that provides an entrance point to wide distribution being possible. (Legislatively, economically, general awareness). It's not suitable as a single solution to go all-in on - As long as this isn't treated as a false-dilemma and solely relied upon, it has value.

gaius 8y ago

where an intransigent minority of people have forced a large percentage of food to be certified This is very specific to tolerant Western culture. A 1% minority anywhere else in the world would be at best ignored and more likely steamrollered into conformity.

ethiclub 8y ago

> As such, the solution to reducing emissions might be to set up an environmental "beth din" which certifies whether a product is "environmentally kosher" or not. If an intransigent minority only consumes products that are certified environmentally kosher, the passive majority will fall in line Further: A. Organizations being held accountable by external audit will be far more likely to engage in ethical behavior than those with internal audits (internal boards are more subject to bias and likely have less access to expertise). B. This could reduce 'greenwashing' and other exploitative claims over time. C. The 'intransigent minority' (being willing to invest in such products) fund the initial growth of products, allowing them to gain economies of scale over time. Prices can then lower, and more consumers are then willing to purchase said products.