Does Pascal's Wager Apply to Environmental Concerns

[lynnvinc]

Yeah but in the case of global warming it doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether I drive an Expedition or bike to work. It doesn’t matter who I vote for. It doesn’t matter what products I buy or don’t buy. There are much larger forces at work, that care not one bit for what I think or what I do.

I try to not be wasteful, but I am under no illusion that I am in any way helping the planet, or that the example I set to other people, or the companies I support or don’t support, amounts to anything other than a speck of dust in the Sahara desert.

Hence I hope it’s an overblown concern.

That’s good. Hope for the best. But I also “expect the worst” and strive to mitigate it…esp in the case of global warming where our efforts are saving us $thousands without lowering living standards or productivity.

And I would rather believe what bona fide climate scientists have to say – and they say it is real and mainly caused by humans – than dentists and astrophysicists, and such funded by Exxon/Koch/Scaife and their eager followers.

But that’s just me. People can basically do anything they want, including killing their children, and get by with it. That’s the way things are and probably will be until the bitter end.

 

[Kilbourne]

The world-wide banning of DDT is an example of the exercise of the precautionary principle. But with hindsight we now should know that the toxicity of DDT was greatly exaggerated and a complete ban was a horrible mistake, resulting in the death of millions from malaria.

Today we have the same crowd urging the application of the precautionary principle to global warming. We can expect nothing good from it. We can already see the deleterious effects of global warming mitigation policies. Just take the drive toward bio fuels as an example. The GW crowd is cheering this on because it supposedly will cut down CO2 emissions. But it ain’t good for orangutans whose habitat is being destroyed by palm oil cultivation. Not good for poor Mexicans whose tortilla prices are being driven up by ethanol subsidies and mandates. Folks, over 40% of the US corn crop is going into ethanol! With the world food supplied measured in days, is this not a recipe for disaster? Yet this is where the PP leads us.

 

[lynnvinc]

The world-wide banning of DDT is an example of the exercise of the precautionary principle. But with hindsight we now should know that the toxicity of DDT was greatly exaggerated and a complete ban was a horrible mistake, resulting in the death of millions from malaria.

Today we have the same crowd urging the application of the precautionary principle to global warming. We can expect nothing good from it. We can already see the deleterious effects of global warming mitigation policies. Just take the drive toward bio fuels as an example. The GW crowd is cheering this on because it supposedly will cut down CO2 emissions. But it ain’t good for orangutans whose habitat is being destroyed by palm oil cultivation. Not good for poor Mexicans whose tortilla prices are being driven up by ethanol subsidies and mandates. Folks, over 40% of the US corn crop is going into ethanol! With the world food supplied measured in days, is this not a recipe for disaster? Yet this is where the PP leads us.

No environmentalist I know supports biofuels made from food. That just a big myth and lie. In fact studies have shown that bec of industrial agricultural practices, tremendous (name removed by moderator)uts, including high level use of water (and the energy needed to pump that water) the GHG emissions entailed in biofuel production and use are higher than those entailed in petroleum and coal.

But I’ll tell you who supports biofuels – the ag industry and the politicians who represent them.

I, for one have always been against food to fuel since the day I first heard about it. My main impetus to mitigating GW has been my strong desire to reduce world starvation and famine from GW and its impacts (droughts, floods, severe storms, and concomitant crop and seafood harms from CO2). We are headed for very bad times, esp now that the sun is coming out of it minimum irradiance and headed toward a maximum, which will just piggy-back on top of our human-caused greenhouse effect and do tremendous harm to life on earth.

But it’s a free country. If people absolutely refuse to reap in the economic savings from mitigating GW (we’ve saved $1000s in reducing our GHG emissions 60%+ below our 1990 levels, without lowering living standards)…If people prefer instead to tip the world into runaway warming and end all life on planet earth, then who am I to suggest they reconsider. Actually the more I plead, the more they want to do just the opposite and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to see people burning their money out on their front lawns, even harming their own children by smoke inhalation, just to increase their GHG emissions.

It seems Pascal’s wager didn’t do much good to prevent the rise of atheism, and I doubt it’s going to stop people from destroying all life on planet earth including their own progeny…that’s just the way the world is until the bitter end. It’s there in the Bible – the story of Cain and Abel. Technology to wipe out life on earth more easily may have changed and improved, but human nature has not changed.

 

[Kilbourne]

Hi Lynn,

Good to talk to you agin.

No environmentalist I know supports biofuels made from food.

I’ve known plenty over the years. Admittedly, the more Christian-oriented bio-fuel supporters I’ve known were somewhat cautious in their support and may have changed their tune since 2007, the year commodity prices went kerblooie and we had tortilla riots in Mexico city. But they still supported it in the beginning.

Right now the primary supporters of bio-fuels are corporate ag, farmers (big and small), knee-jerk environmentalists (as long as it hurts the fossil fuel industry, they’re for it), and those already in the industry. With these entrenched interests in place, it will be hard to repeal all those mandates, incentives, etc.

 

[Kilbourne]

It seems Pascal’s wager didn’t do much good to prevent the rise of atheism, and I doubt it’s going to stop people from destroying all life on planet earth

I have no comment on Pascal’s Wager as an antidote to atheism. But I do know that the application of that reasoning to environmental problems (e.g. via precautionary principle) is wrong and proves nothing.

As long as you conjure up an alarming enough scenario and assign a high enough probability to the scary outcome (via a totally subjective process), the principle will always cause one to take the precautionary path.

The problem with the PP applied to global warming is that the scary outcome is by no means probable, and there never is an honest accounting for the costs that will be associated with acting in a way to avoid the scary outcome. Just like there wasn’t an honest analysis of the DDT issue. And look at the huge human cost! Rachel Carson and her followers who eventually achieved a world-wide ban of DDT caused the death of millions. I fear the same will happen as a result of the current GW hysteria.

Here are some more examples of how GW hysteria is costing human beings right now: GW-inspired policies are hindering the development of coal-fired electricity in Africa. Poor Africans were recently forcibly evicted from land purchased by wealthy Westerners for the purpose of carbon offset programs (planting trees and what-not). and so on.

 

[lynnvinc]

Hi Lynn,

Good to talk to you agin.

I’ve known plenty over the years. Admittedly, the more Christian-oriented bio-fuel supporters I’ve known were somewhat cautious in their support and may have changed their tune since 2007, the year commodity prices went kerblooie and we had tortilla riots in Mexico city. But they still supported it in the beginning.

Right now the primary supporters of bio-fuels are corporate ag, farmers (big and small), knee-jerk environmentalists (as long as it hurts the fossil fuel industry, they’re for it), and those already in the industry. With these entrenched interests in place, it will be hard to repeal all those mandates, incentives, etc.

As I said, I haven’t known any environmentalist supporting food-to-fuel, tho I’ve know a few “wannabe” environmentalists who would like to do the right thing, and they’ve told me “I just bought a flex-fuel car” and such. Since they’ve already bought it, I cringe when I tell them 1st gen biofuels entail more pollutiona and GHG emissions, but hopefully we’ll get into 2nd gen biofuels (using ag waste etc) that will be an improvement. I have a friend over at BiofuelWatch.org.uk who is a staunch environmentalist AND staunchly opposed to biofuels…

 

[lynnvinc]

I have no comment on Pascal’s Wager as an antidote to atheism. But I do know that the application of that reasoning to environmental problems (e.g. via precautionary principle) is wrong and proves nothing.

As long as you conjure up an alarming enough scenario and assign a high enough probability to the scary outcome (via a totally subjective process), the principle will always cause one to take the precautionary path.

The problem with the PP applied to global warming is that the scary outcome is by no means probable, and there never is an honest accounting for the costs that will be associated with acting in a way to avoid the scary outcome. Just like there wasn’t an honest analysis of the DDT issue. And look at the huge human cost! Rachel Carson and her followers who eventually achieved a world-wide ban of DDT caused the death of millions. I fear the same will happen as a result of the current GW hysteria.

Here are some more examples of how GW hysteria is costing human beings right now: GW-inspired policies are hindering the development of coal-fired electricity in Africa. Poor Africans were recently forcibly evicted from land purchased by wealthy Westerners for the purpose of carbon offset programs (planting trees and what-not). and so on.

When the top NASA climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, says runaway warming (ending all life on earth) is a dead certainty if we burn all the oil and coal AND the unconventional sources (tarsands, oil shale, gas-fracking) then I think we should at least give it a moment’s consideration. See esp pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

Now this is the ultimate in alarming, but if there really is a fire in the theater, I think we would want to be warned so we can file out quickly, peacably, and efficiently, rather than burn to a crisp.

It was alarming enough when I received it just before Xmas 2008 that I emailed Jim and asked if he were referring to climate hysteresis as during the end-Permian 251 mya when 95% of life on earth died out, and he said no, he was referring to runaway warming as on Venus, in which case all life would die out. You can also read his book STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN to get a more indepth explanation.

Let’s totally hope he is dead wrong, but let’s not fail to turn off lights not in use and the 1000s of other things we can do to reduce our GHGs that save us money without lowering our living standards

 

[lynnvinc]

Here are some more examples of how GW hysteria is costing human beings right now: GW-inspired policies are hindering the development of coal-fired electricity in Africa. Poor Africans were recently forcibly evicted from land purchased by wealthy Westerners for the purpose of carbon offset programs (planting trees and what-not). and so on.

Again, environmentalists I know are against offset programs (and even more so if they are bogus or harm people). They even make jokes about it, like it being akin to paying some other man to be faithful to his wife so one can cheat on his own wife with impugnity.

What they all say is we ourselves have to reduce our own GHGs. Period. There is no shortcut. Taking food out of starving people’s mouths to run our SUVs on extravagant pleasure trips is definitely not a solution, especially when such biofuels entail more GHG emissions and pollution than petroleum. And neither is buying carbon offsets so we can run our SUVs profligately/inefficiently on petroleum guilt-free.

We have to find ways to reduce our own driving, such as drive more efficiently, hypermile, buy more fuel efficient cars (or an EV) next car buy, move closer to work/schools on our next home buy, run multiple (rather than single) errands, take the shorter route, turn off motors in drive-thrus (and buy the veggie burger), and things like that. And with some of all that money we save, we can help the poor in poor countries get onto a better development track with more alt energy and energy/resource efficient measures and products. Why would we want them to choke on pollution? I don’t understand that.

Furthermore, “cap and trade” and “fee and dividend” are not solution either if people just suck it up and pay the higher prices and absolutely refuse to reduce their GHG emissions thru energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy. The idea behind these programs is that higher prices at the pump and plugpoint will inspire people to do the right thing and reduce (thereby not increasing their fuel bills), but since saving money by doing these things has not inspired people to reduce, then raising prices on emissions will not either. Altho I’d be much in favor of ending subsidies and tax-breaks to fossil fuel industries (and food-to-fuel agbiz), just on the principle of not liking to pay on April 15th for other people to pollute and kill.

Pascal’s wager is trumped by “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink, even if it dies for lack of water.” Pascal wrongly assumed people are rational beings without all sorts of weirdness and craziness lurking in their subconsciouses and ideologies. So I guess Pascal’s wager does not work for environmental issues or much of anything else.

But I’m still hopeful it might work. See this video: youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=related & the more recent one: youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg&feature=relmfu (these are good, except he wrongly assumes it will cost to mitigate GW, rather than it will save us money and help the economy).

 

[ReapReason]

People are speaking of belief here like its something they are convinced of.

What about hope? One does not have to be convinced of something in-order to have hope in something, so long as there is no contradiction in that which you have hope for. It is only natural that one hopes to survive death. We try to survive death all the time; so it is only reasonable that one would “hope” that some particular belief about the after life were true, even if they don’t see evidence for it. There is nothing dishonest or irrational about hope.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

People are speaking of belief here like its something they are convinced of.

What about hope? One does not have to be convinced of something in-order to have hope in something, so long as there is no contradiction in that which you have hope for. It is only natural that one hopes to survive death. We try to survive death all the time; so it is only reasonable that one would “hope” that some particular belief about the after life were true, even if they don’t see evidence for it. There is nothing dishonest or irrational about hope.

I’m guessing that to some degree that is directed to me. Especially since you asked me a version of this question in the other thread you had started that got deleted in the last hour or so. It’s probably better to ask this question in a different thread though. The emphasis of this thread wasn’t surviving death. The emphasis was environmental concerns and whether or not the logic of Pascal’s Wager is applicable to those concerns.

Also might I suggest that if you start a new thread not to specifically address atheist; I think that caused the thread to veer into the forbidden territory. Instead you might want to ask in general how hope motivates people. I would be happy to participate in such a thread.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I like Pascal’s Wager, since I teach statistics and hypothesis testing…with the alpha error or FALSE POSITIVE (making a false claim, which scientists avoid like the plague) and the beta error or FALSE NEGATIVE (which if about a serious problem we say does not exist & we fail to address it could be our doom – so laypersons, policy-makers, and doctors would be striving to avoid this).

However, this really doesn’t apply as well to global warming I have found, in the Pascal said that if we believe in God when there is no God, then no harm done, but it is more like tremendous good done.

Here are the 4 scenarios for global warming:

1. FALSE POSITIVE: global warming is not happening, but we mitigate it anyway, thereby reducing other environmental and other problems, saving lives and health, saving money and the economy without reducing living standards and productivity. This is the very best of all scenarios. (And I’m already laughing all the way to the bank having mitigated GW for over 20 years – feeling a bit sorry for the poor denialist suckers choking on debt.)
2. TRUE POSITIVE: global warming is happening and we mitigate it. We’re a bit late, so there will still be tremendous harms for perhaps 100s of years, but we have staved off annihilation of life on earth avoiding tipping points and runaway warming. And all our mitigation strategies have mitigated many other problems, including local and regional pollution, the ozone hole, resource depletion, military actions and conflicts over resources, etc. Even crime-safer streets. Yes, walking and cycling (instead of driving cars) reduces crime, not to mention wear and tear on roads.
3. TRUE NEGATIVE: global warming is not happening and we do not mitigate it. We send our economic and environmental systems into really bad tail spins by failing to capitalize on the savings from energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy, and by failing to adequately address other environmental issues (which are also solved thru GW mitigation measures). That includes many lives lost due to the pollution and in conflicts over resources.
4. FALSE NEGATIVE: global warming is happening and we do not mitigate it. We send our system into runaway warming and end all life on earth. See esp. pg. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

So actually our choice is a win-win-win-win-win situation if we mitigate GW v. a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE situation if we fail to mitigate GW.

It’s a no-brainer.

I think this is the way Mycroft Holmes spent his spare time. Which explains why he had few friends - no one could understand him!!!

 

[lynnvinc]

I think this is the way Mycroft Holmes spent his spare time. Which explains why he had few friends - no one could understand him!!!

Well, let me put it another way.

Confucius say, “Turning off lights not in use saves money, does not cost money.” And he further says, “When there really is a fire in the theater, people should try to exit as peacably and efficiently as possible, or we will all be burned to a crisp.”

This video says it a lot better than I did (except it fails to note that mitigating climate change through energy/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy saves money and reduces health harms from all sorts of other pollution, etc): youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

 

[lynnvinc]

If people were good and sincerely pro-life, they would know exactly what I mean, because they would have been mitigating climate change for the past 2 decades and they would have found out to their pleasant surprise that they have saved $1000s without lowering their living standards, and would have reaped many more benefits besides.

Let’s take living closer to work. That not only saves on gasoline and car maintenance, but also reduces commute time, so one can spend more time with their families. It also reduces other pollution that kills people and causes miscarriages and birth defects; also reducing health harm to the drivers and passengers of the car which gets a lot of inside pollution, and reduces chances of accidents. It also reduced wear and tear on roads, and the need for tax money for road repairs.

Now we’ve been living within one or two miles of work for the past 40 years due to the energy crunch in the 70s and my awareness then that oil is a finite resource reaching its peak in a few decades. And obviously we are now past peak; otherwise we would not be going after extremely deep offshore oil and tar sands (with a very high energy/resource (name removed by moderator)ut per amount of energy we get out of it). Because we’ve been living close to work all along and did it for different reasons than mitigating CC, I don’t calculate that in our 60% reduction in GHGs since 1990.

And that’s just one measure. There are 1000s more that save money, improve health, and help the economy.

Anyone seriously into mitigating climate change would know about these.

What people who are sincerely pro-life need to do is take that first baby step of mitigating climate change (which will also mitigate a slough of other life-harmful problems). Maybe just hypermiling, such driving more efficiently, by accelerating and braking slowly, etc. That is, you see the light way up ahead has turned yellow and you know you could never speed up enough to make it to the intersection before it turns red, just break very lightly and coast up to the red light. Then when starting from zero, start very slowly with at light foot on the accelerator until you get to about 15 mph, then you can accelerate a more rapidly. And there are many many other tips to hypermiling, which could help you get a much better mpg, in some cases even double it. You can google “hypermiling” for more tips.

Hypermiling doesn’t cost a penny but it saves, as well as fuel money. It also saves on break and other car repairs. It is a win-win-win-win-win-win thing. I think it also makes a positive change on people’s personality, making them more gentle.

So re Pascal’s wager, the false positive re climate change has no costs at all, only savings and great benefits. There is nothing at all to lose, only much much to gain by mitigating climate change, whether or not it is happening, and anthropogentic CC IS happening – it has been established as a scientific fact since 1995, with evidence getting stronger and more robust ever since.

Pro-life people such as JPII and BXVI have been following the CC issue closely and have been telling us to mitigate since 1990. We need to become pro-life like them.