3 ms·

Rational decision making always involves assessing the (probable) costs and benefits of potential actions. If the potential benefit is small and uncertain, and

Rational decision making always involves assessing the (probable) costs and benefits of potential actions. If the potential benefit is small and uncertain, and the cost is large and certain, it probably makes sense to wait and collect more information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global... http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx

thaumaturgy 18y ago
A friend and I once carried several large pieces of trash out of a wilderness area. We were sore, and tired, and our packs were heavy, and we were eager to go home and shower and eat some junk food. I'm glad we didn't make a rational decision.
- koningrobot 18y ago
  You are glad based on how it made you feel, not on what impact it made. Most probably it didn't have much impact and you might as well have dropped the trash. Not that that's what I would've done, but saying we should trust our emotions on this big and costly problem makes no sense. Of course, throwing rationality out of the window by definition doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what your point is.
  - thaumaturgy 18y ago
    I was taking issue with the definition of a "rational" decision in terms of environment as merely a cost-benefit analysis. I'm, frankly, sick of cost-benefit analysis being applied to everything. It has become the hammer that's turning everything into a nail. It's led to a pretty ugly state of software in a lot of different arenas, because a CBA doesn't support spending much time running down memory leaks, or trying to reduce software footprint. The problem with using CBA in software -- and more to the point, in the environment -- is that it ignores the cumulative effect of lots of small decisions. Each individual action may not make "rational" sense in terms of CBA, but the consequences quickly add up. To go back to my specific example, you're right that our hauling out some of the trash probably had very little positive impact on our environment. However, it is the cumulative actions of us and others like us who ensure that our trails stay clean. For yet another example, if you climb Mount Rainier in Washington, you are expected to pack out all of your waste. I would guess the average trip time to the summit and back to be about three to four days, so that means that parties must carry their poop in their pack. From an individual cost-benefit point of view, that's ridiculous and not rational. It requires a lot of effort for -- on an individual basis -- little environmental benefit. However, it's the cumulative impact of thousands of summit parties every year that has a very real, and very detrimental, impact on the mountain's ecology. Basically, cost-benefit analysis is a stupid, shortsighted way to make decisions.
    - jacoblyles 18y ago
      You are suggesting that we ought to take all costs into account when doing cost-benefit analysis. You are not providing a substantive criticism of cost-benefit analysis.
      - thaumaturgy 18y ago
        If I had wanted to suggest that, I would have. How does a group of people take all costs into account when doing a cost-benefit analysis if they can't agree on what constitutes a cost and what constitutes a benefit, and their relative values? You and others here are talking about CBA as the basis for rational decision making, and yet I bet you couldn't even describe it in any formal way that could apply to all logical decisions. What does it mean to do a CBA in terms of your immediate environment? What factors are you taking into consideration? Aesthetics? Health? How much money is clean water worth to you? Or, from a CBA standpoint: is it worth pouring a gallon of paint into your drinking water, or is it better to transport that paint to a remote facility which will handle it in some fashion? And in that one relatively minor decision alone, how many different factors are you going to account for? The size of your drinking water supply, the chemical composition of the paint, the ecology of your drinking water supply, the distance to the waste managing facility, the vehicle used to get it there, the methods the facility uses to handle it ... This CBA hand-waving is bullshit. It's impossible to take all costs into account for this kind of stuff. Most people -- even the most knowledgeable climate scientists -- don't even know what all the costs are. So just how are we supposed to justify our environmental decisions using a CBA when you can't even correctly do the accounting in the costs column? And this is what constitutes the basis for rational decision making? Bah! Bah, I say! I think it's perfectly rational to make decisions based on morals and ethics, and whether or not the consequences of that decision get you closer to your goals or not. So, for example, one of my goals is to experience wilderness areas in as pristine a state as possible. I see trash there. The trash is heavy, and I have a long distance to hike out. It will cost me a great deal of effort to remove it. But, it still does help to accomplish my goal: the next time I visit that place, the trash won't be there (nor will it be there for the next visitor). Thus, I will remove it, if possible. Is that not a rational decision-making process? Does that not make sense from an environmental standpoint, as a species?
Tichy 18y ago
Lomborg's claims rest on the assumption that the benefits are small and uncertain. I remember him citing "heat deaths" as one of the worst predicted outcomes of global warming. "Warmists" would certainly disagree that this is the worst thing to expect. I don't know the proper name for this argumentation technique, in my opinion Lomborg creates a kind of strawman, but that is not quite the right word. He says "look here, heat deaths are a non-issue, so global warming is a non-issue", when really heat-deaths are not the main issue of global warming. You are of course right about rational decision making, but the estimates of the risks diverge between the groups, so they arrive at different decisions.
- jacoblyles 18y ago
  While Lomborg's five-minute speeches do not touch on every cost and benefit of Global Warming, the Copenhagen Consensus does operate with the latest research estimates of the comprehensive costs and benefits. If you're looking for an easy way to dismiss Lomborg, you're not going to find one. The dude is not a hack.

thaumaturgy 18y ago

A friend and I once carried several large pieces of trash out of a wilderness area. We were sore, and tired, and our packs were heavy, and we were eager to go home and shower and eat some junk food. I'm glad we didn't make a rational decision.

koningrobot 18y ago
You are glad based on how it made you feel, not on what impact it made. Most probably it didn't have much impact and you might as well have dropped the trash. Not that that's what I would've done, but saying we should trust our emotions on this big and costly problem makes no sense. Of course, throwing rationality out of the window by definition doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure what your point is.
- thaumaturgy 18y ago
  I was taking issue with the definition of a "rational" decision in terms of environment as merely a cost-benefit analysis. I'm, frankly, sick of cost-benefit analysis being applied to everything. It has become the hammer that's turning everything into a nail. It's led to a pretty ugly state of software in a lot of different arenas, because a CBA doesn't support spending much time running down memory leaks, or trying to reduce software footprint. The problem with using CBA in software -- and more to the point, in the environment -- is that it ignores the cumulative effect of lots of small decisions. Each individual action may not make "rational" sense in terms of CBA, but the consequences quickly add up. To go back to my specific example, you're right that our hauling out some of the trash probably had very little positive impact on our environment. However, it is the cumulative actions of us and others like us who ensure that our trails stay clean. For yet another example, if you climb Mount Rainier in Washington, you are expected to pack out all of your waste. I would guess the average trip time to the summit and back to be about three to four days, so that means that parties must carry their poop in their pack. From an individual cost-benefit point of view, that's ridiculous and not rational. It requires a lot of effort for -- on an individual basis -- little environmental benefit. However, it's the cumulative impact of thousands of summit parties every year that has a very real, and very detrimental, impact on the mountain's ecology. Basically, cost-benefit analysis is a stupid, shortsighted way to make decisions.
  - jacoblyles 18y ago
    You are suggesting that we ought to take all costs into account when doing cost-benefit analysis. You are not providing a substantive criticism of cost-benefit analysis.
    - thaumaturgy 18y ago
      If I had wanted to suggest that, I would have. How does a group of people take all costs into account when doing a cost-benefit analysis if they can't agree on what constitutes a cost and what constitutes a benefit, and their relative values? You and others here are talking about CBA as the basis for rational decision making, and yet I bet you couldn't even describe it in any formal way that could apply to all logical decisions. What does it mean to do a CBA in terms of your immediate environment? What factors are you taking into consideration? Aesthetics? Health? How much money is clean water worth to you? Or, from a CBA standpoint: is it worth pouring a gallon of paint into your drinking water, or is it better to transport that paint to a remote facility which will handle it in some fashion? And in that one relatively minor decision alone, how many different factors are you going to account for? The size of your drinking water supply, the chemical composition of the paint, the ecology of your drinking water supply, the distance to the waste managing facility, the vehicle used to get it there, the methods the facility uses to handle it ... This CBA hand-waving is bullshit. It's impossible to take all costs into account for this kind of stuff. Most people -- even the most knowledgeable climate scientists -- don't even know what all the costs are. So just how are we supposed to justify our environmental decisions using a CBA when you can't even correctly do the accounting in the costs column? And this is what constitutes the basis for rational decision making? Bah! Bah, I say! I think it's perfectly rational to make decisions based on morals and ethics, and whether or not the consequences of that decision get you closer to your goals or not. So, for example, one of my goals is to experience wilderness areas in as pristine a state as possible. I see trash there. The trash is heavy, and I have a long distance to hike out. It will cost me a great deal of effort to remove it. But, it still does help to accomplish my goal: the next time I visit that place, the trash won't be there (nor will it be there for the next visitor). Thus, I will remove it, if possible. Is that not a rational decision-making process? Does that not make sense from an environmental standpoint, as a species?

Tichy 18y ago

Lomborg's claims rest on the assumption that the benefits are small and uncertain. I remember him citing "heat deaths" as one of the worst predicted outcomes of global warming. "Warmists" would certainly disagree that this is the worst thing to expect. I don't know the proper name for this argumentation technique, in my opinion Lomborg creates a kind of strawman, but that is not quite the right word. He says "look here, heat deaths are a non-issue, so global warming is a non-issue", when really heat-deaths are not the main issue of global warming. You are of course right about rational decision making, but the estimates of the risks diverge between the groups, so they arrive at different decisions.

jacoblyles 18y ago
While Lomborg's five-minute speeches do not touch on every cost and benefit of Global Warming, the Copenhagen Consensus does operate with the latest research estimates of the comprehensive costs and benefits. If you're looking for an easy way to dismiss Lomborg, you're not going to find one. The dude is not a hack.