4 ms·

Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact, even without definitive evidence one way or another? Otherwise it's like deciding to not drive cautiously on a moun

Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact, even without definitive evidence one way or another? Otherwise it's like deciding to not drive cautiously on a mountain road because your GPS isn't sure if there's a sharp turn ahead.

quaintdev 5y ago
Well the pandemic has shown us that even if the GPS is pretty sure there is a sharp turn ahead some people refuse to believe it because it is scary to drive on that sharp turn. Eventually we all will have to take that sharp turn but I just hope there is safe passage left ahead of that turn and not all downhill.
colechristensen 5y ago
There will always be another thing to be afraid of. “ Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact,” will always be there as a question for the next thing. So no, it wouldn’t be best to default to assuming the worst, you have to be able to decide which risks to tolerate and which to address, and to which degree.
- ouid 5y ago
  Absolutely not! The only way that you can believe this is if you a) consider the preservation of human civilization to be approximately equal, in terms of significance to your decision making, to living a more comfortable life personally. In this instance, we are at war, and I have nothing to say to you, so you can stop reading. Or b) you are making a very serious error in your calculation. Imagine that you the kind of immortal being that can still die in car crashes, but you never age. Whenever you take a risk, of death say, in order to get the expected utility of taking this risk, you need to multiply your risk ,which is a small number, by the opportunity cost of that risk, which is an infinite life's worth of utility. I do not, like many of the "rationalists" believe that this figure is infinity, but it is very obviously much larger than your risk is small. It's hard to reason about, but I urge you to imagine it in the shower with the lights off. Really try to get into that space, and imagine what risks you would consider to be acceptable as an immortal. Humanity is such an immortal being, but it currently lacks the tools to act for itself. We can build those tools, but that will take time and lots and lots of thought.
  - tehjoker 5y ago
    This is an interesting spin on the age old risk assessment question. Thanks.
- another_story 5y ago
  I didn't say assume the worst, but to proceed with caution, which we aren't doing.
aqaq2 5y ago
sleepingadmin 5y ago
>Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact, even without definitive evidence one way or another? Otherwise it's like deciding to not drive cautiously on a mountain road because your GPS isn't sure if there's a sharp turn ahead. Because since basically forever, people have been claiming doomsday based on nothing. Mayan calendar! Obviously this is climate change related so lets just stick with climate change doomsdays. ~1969, The UK won't exist in 2000 ~1970, food and water rationing by 1980s ~1975, new ice age upon us. ~1988, NYC under water in the 2000s: https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon... ~1989, entire nations wiped off the planet by global warming: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warm... ~2000, snowfall a thing of the past: https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.indepe... Might I interject, I have 30cm of snow coming in the next couple days. Mmmm Canada. ~2005, 50 million climate change refugees by 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturald... ~2006, Super hurricanes! https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no-major-hurricanes-in-9-years/ https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no... Lets just look at that last one. The rationalization seems sound. So much more energy in the oceans would seem to suggest it would give more power to hurricanes. but the exact opposite of the prediction happened. ~2006, inconvenient truth by al gore? Except the title it a lie. Virtually every one of his claims have been falsified now. https://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200612/20061205/20061205_108_350x263.jpg https://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://... Yes that's al gore in the inconvenient truth predicting florida significantly under water, years ago. What is the motivation behind Al gore's false claims? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/12/03/al-gore-in-paris-invest-in-renewables-or-drown-in-fossil-fuels/?sh=7198169c2b92 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/12/03/al-gore-... Al Gore invested $ in renewables, he will profit greatly when we switch over. However, as an evangelist, he may be exagerating the doom and gloom a lot.
- another_story 5y ago

quaintdev 5y ago

Well the pandemic has shown us that even if the GPS is pretty sure there is a sharp turn ahead some people refuse to believe it because it is scary to drive on that sharp turn. Eventually we all will have to take that sharp turn but I just hope there is safe passage left ahead of that turn and not all downhill.

colechristensen 5y ago

There will always be another thing to be afraid of. “ Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact,” will always be there as a question for the next thing. So no, it wouldn’t be best to default to assuming the worst, you have to be able to decide which risks to tolerate and which to address, and to which degree.

ouid 5y ago
Absolutely not! The only way that you can believe this is if you a) consider the preservation of human civilization to be approximately equal, in terms of significance to your decision making, to living a more comfortable life personally. In this instance, we are at war, and I have nothing to say to you, so you can stop reading. Or b) you are making a very serious error in your calculation. Imagine that you the kind of immortal being that can still die in car crashes, but you never age. Whenever you take a risk, of death say, in order to get the expected utility of taking this risk, you need to multiply your risk ,which is a small number, by the opportunity cost of that risk, which is an infinite life's worth of utility. I do not, like many of the "rationalists" believe that this figure is infinity, but it is very obviously much larger than your risk is small. It's hard to reason about, but I urge you to imagine it in the shower with the lights off. Really try to get into that space, and imagine what risks you would consider to be acceptable as an immortal. Humanity is such an immortal being, but it currently lacks the tools to act for itself. We can build those tools, but that will take time and lots and lots of thought.
- tehjoker 5y ago
  This is an interesting spin on the age old risk assessment question. Thanks.
another_story 5y ago
I didn't say assume the worst, but to proceed with caution, which we aren't doing.

aqaq2 5y ago

sleepingadmin 5y ago

>Wouldn't it be best to act as if it's fact, even without definitive evidence one way or another? Otherwise it's like deciding to not drive cautiously on a mountain road because your GPS isn't sure if there's a sharp turn ahead. Because since basically forever, people have been claiming doomsday based on nothing. Mayan calendar! Obviously this is climate change related so lets just stick with climate change doomsdays. ~1969, The UK won't exist in 2000 ~1970, food and water rationing by 1980s ~1975, new ice age upon us. ~1988, NYC under water in the 2000s: https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110202162233/https://www.salon... ~1989, entire nations wiped off the planet by global warming: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warm... ~2000, snowfall a thing of the past: https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html https://web.archive.org/web/20150912124604/http://www.indepe... Might I interject, I have 30cm of snow coming in the next couple days. Mmmm Canada. ~2005, 50 million climate change refugees by 2010: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturaldisasters.climatechange1 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/oct/12/naturald... ~2006, Super hurricanes! https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no-major-hurricanes-in-9-years/ https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/06/01/media-fail-no... Lets just look at that last one. The rationalization seems sound. So much more energy in the oceans would seem to suggest it would give more power to hurricanes. but the exact opposite of the prediction happened. ~2006, inconvenient truth by al gore? Except the title it a lie. Virtually every one of his claims have been falsified now. https://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://static.oprah.com/images/tows/200612/20061205/20061205_108_350x263.jpg https://www.oprah.com/g/image-resizer?width=670&link=http://... Yes that's al gore in the inconvenient truth predicting florida significantly under water, years ago. What is the motivation behind Al gore's false claims? https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/12/03/al-gore-in-paris-invest-in-renewables-or-drown-in-fossil-fuels/?sh=7198169c2b92 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2015/12/03/al-gore-... Al Gore invested $ in renewables, he will profit greatly when we switch over. However, as an evangelist, he may be exagerating the doom and gloom a lot.

another_story 5y ago