The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[Az]

Run time: 09:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ   Posted on YouTube: June 08, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 23, 2007 By DU Member: Az Views on DU: 2138

 
Sort of a scientific Pascal's Wager without the quantitative flaws Pascal made.

[wtmusic]

1. Seems like a very complicated way of stating

the precautionary principle.

But whatever works.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

2. wonderful video

I am going to show it wherever I can.

[Warpy]

3. Doing my part

K&R and sent to a big mail list.

[IndyOp]

4. Lots more from the same guy -- addresses criticisms...

Patching Holes #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGpYI9LcJkA&mode=related&search=

Patching Holes #2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBy8dEtiCc4

Patching Holes #3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-JtKsG2fVU&mode=related&search=

[LeftyMcDemocrat]

5. cool

[Morgana LaFey]

6. I'm sending it to just about everyone in my address book

How about all of you??

[Lorien]

7. In all truth, doing something about it will be GOOD for the economy

years ago BP voluntarily decided to go beyond Kyoto in cutting emissions and going green at a few of their plants and their headquarters. After one year they had saved over one million dollars in operating costs at the plants where the changes had been implemented. Excited, they made the same changes company wide and published a report on their corporate savings which they wanted to deliver to congress. Congress said "no thanks"; climate change is a political issue to them; making changes-even if it saves billions nation wide (and life on earth)-is akin to handing a "win" to the left. It's all politics; science, economics and common sense has nothing to do with it.

[cjmastaw]

8. very good look at it

i forwarded this on to like 20 people already. kinda like the quicky version of inconvenient truth

[Guaranteed]

9. It's a good argument, but I think you were on the right track with the problem

with it when you hinted at Pascal's wager. The problem with the approach is that it leads to incorrect conclusions when it is applied to other subjects. For example, the terrorism issue- the column approach leads to a Bush-like, extremely aggressive policy encouraging attacking people that haven't even done anything to us. The approach is simply too black-and-white- in fact, it's "conservative" in that it amplifies possibilities and emphasizes extremes. It leaves no room for likelihood analysis- row, not column, analysis. Admittedly, that's his whole point. But maybe that approach is wrong- maybe we have to actually try to predict the unknown factor and make our best guess based on both it and what is within our power.

Another problem with the approach, more generally, is that it favors action given *any* row-conflict. That's a byproduct of the oversimplification and disregard for likelihood analysis. The conflict and push for action would not exist to begin with, almost certainly, if the lower-right box was not pretty horrible, or at least more horrible than the upper-left, "we got blindsided/were lazy" box. In the event that the worst of inaction is not as bad as the worst of action, there is no conflict- inaction wins.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

10. Add columns as necessary

there shouldn't be only action/no action scenarios, different courses should be considered. Perhaps take the route of gauging diplomatic action against military action and I bet you'd come up with a conclusion that's far less aggressive. After all, using this model, though I haven't tested it, I would think a scenario like a preemptive attack would produce more potentially negative out-comes than a reactive military action.

I agree that the model, at least as demonstrated, works best with yes/no scenarios. Global Warming is a good example, there are generally two major opinions on the matter if environmental action and they are highly polarized. Still, to more complex matters the formula can be equally effective, it is a largely logic based system, but added consideration may need to be taken.

[Nederland]

11. Lousy Argument

It suffers from exactly the same flaws that Pascal's Wager did.

[Pawel K]

12. Yeah, except one is based on science the other is based on fairy tales -nt

[Nederland]

13. Missing the point

The reason that Pascal's wager is flawed is because it assumes that there is only one God to choose from. This argument suffers from the same problem, it assumes that Global Warming is the only problem. You could put anything up on that white board chart and the result would be the same: Peak Oil, Overpopulation, Terrorism, Asteroid strikes, whatever. However, the reality is that you have limited resources and you can't chose column 'A' for everything out there. You have to make a choice.

[Pawel K]

14. Are there different types of global warming?

Not really, this is why this chart doesn't have the same flaws.

[Nederland]

15. Still missing the point

No, there are not different types of global warming, but there are different types of global problems that all fit the same decision matrix.

[Pawel K]

16. Can you post some examples of where you don't think it works in a specific issue

This is using it for a specific issue, unlike pascal's wager which left out all the different possible definitions of god here there is only one real definition of global warming.

[Nederland]

17. I already did -- re-read post #13 (nt)

[LSK]

19. wrong because fighting Global Warming addresses many of those issues

If we get off carbon based energy sources we

- Avoid Peak Oil Problems
- Stop buying oil from people who we exploit and they hate us (terrorisms roots)
- I believe developing alternative energies will be an economic boom, as most new technology booms boost economic growth


Also, you fail to mention how addressing global warming takes away resources for other things?

[Nederland]

22. Some but not all

Can I assume that you would be in favor of a 500 billion dollar anti-asteroid system that protects the planet from potentially catastrophic asteroid strikes? After all, the same matrix argument applies...

[LSK]

23. assuming such a thing costs 500 billion...

And maybe the alternative energy boom creates the money to build such a thing...

[heliarc]

18. Great point

But I'm afraid this sort of video threatens to bore everyone we need to reach to tears... Too bad. Wish we didn't come off so nerdy all the time.s

[LSK]

20. this is whats wrong with the MSM and whats right about YouTube

That some guy with a chalkboard can properly point out the Global Warming issues in a simple and easy to understand way and yet the MSM has failed to address the pros and cons of Global Warming in such a simple way.

[Bonhomme Richard]

21. I have always said to people,....................

when this subject comes up, is that I am not smart enough to know whether global warming is happening or not. What I do know is that the consequences if the anti warming people are wrong far outweigh the risk of doing something. I also believe that the technological advances realized from working toward addressing warming (think of the NASA program)put the citizens of the earth in a win/win situation.
The real downside to doing something is that we, the average citizen, are going to take the economic hit and pay the largest short term price. Just like we always do. Rest assure that the grossly rich, when push comes to shove, will rig it so that they don't lose a dime. As a matter of fact, they will profit even more from it.
Maybe that's the only reason we are still debating the subject. They just haven't fine tuned the formula for making zillions off of it yet.