3 ms·

> It seems biased to assume apocalyptism. You might be right. And that is the whole point; how do we make sure we are not making proportionality errors in eith

> It seems biased to assume apocalyptism. You might be right. And that is the whole point; how do we make sure we are not making proportionality errors in either direction? What is the objective measure? What is the criteria to use to find out if and in which direction we are making such an error? > It is perfectly possible to predict mass negative outcomes in a cool headed and honest way. Like predicting massive overspends on a major construction project. I don't think you're necessarily wrong, but also can't ignore that the non-linearity and complexity of climate science is an unknown quantity more than that of a construction project. The reliability of predictions will have different upper bounds, and our conveyed sense of confidence should reflect that, not the romantically moving horribleness of the worst case scenario we can think of.

moistly 5y ago
> how do we make sure we are not making proportionality errors in either direction? LOL, yah, I’d hate for the ocean to not have plastic, or CO2 levels to get back down, or to not breathe mercury from the local coal plant, or… gosh, any of those errors in the wrong direction, you know. Whataboutism and analysis paralysis are not helpful modes of behaviour. Immediate action to begin remedying the obvious problems would be helpful. We can do that on an individual basis, and must also press those with more power to do the same.
7952 5y ago
A lot of things have no objective measure at all. We still have to make decisions and act. And people will naturally see a perspective based on their own experience and understanding. We put the burden of proof on one side or the other. A good example of this was the response to covid. People had completely different levels of optimism based on their background. A good practical tool we have is to just run a cost benefit analysis. But reduce your requirement for unproven benefit as the cost drops. So you require masks in a pandemic even when you don't know if they will work. Because the cost is low the loss is minimal if there is no benefit. This kind of decision is made all the time intuitively in things like renewable energy. Ultimately the political system has to answer these questions. And it deals with such questions all the time. I wonder how predictable international power politics or economics is in terms of "non-linearity and complexity".

moistly 5y ago

> how do we make sure we are not making proportionality errors in either direction? LOL, yah, I’d hate for the ocean to not have plastic, or CO2 levels to get back down, or to not breathe mercury from the local coal plant, or… gosh, any of those errors in the wrong direction, you know. Whataboutism and analysis paralysis are not helpful modes of behaviour. Immediate action to begin remedying the obvious problems would be helpful. We can do that on an individual basis, and must also press those with more power to do the same.

7952 5y ago

A lot of things have no objective measure at all. We still have to make decisions and act. And people will naturally see a perspective based on their own experience and understanding. We put the burden of proof on one side or the other. A good example of this was the response to covid. People had completely different levels of optimism based on their background. A good practical tool we have is to just run a cost benefit analysis. But reduce your requirement for unproven benefit as the cost drops. So you require masks in a pandemic even when you don't know if they will work. Because the cost is low the loss is minimal if there is no benefit. This kind of decision is made all the time intuitively in things like renewable energy. Ultimately the political system has to answer these questions. And it deals with such questions all the time. I wonder how predictable international power politics or economics is in terms of "non-linearity and complexity".