Anglican Prayer Beads  Prayer Beads  Anglican Rosary Rosaries  Natural Soap  Handmade Soap

Well, I agree with the conclusion (that we should do something about global warming), but the argument seems to mimic Pascal's Wager. I'm not sure it works.

It invites us to consider the consequences of acting (or not) without considering how likely the outcomes are. Here's an example: I may or may not get shot tomorrow. I can't say for sure one way or another. I do have a choice about whether I'll wear a bullet proof vest. The reasonable course for me is to choose to wear the vest – the consequences of not doing so are dire, whereas the consequences of wearing one are, at worst, getting ridiculed and being uncomfortably warm.

But I won't wear a bullet proof vest tomorrow. I'm not willing to accept even mild consequences, because I think the risk of getting shot is vanishingly small. We balance risks and consequences all the time, otherwise we'd spend all our time and energy defending against very unlikely threats. (For extra credit, try applying this to our response to terrorism.)

Of course, I'm now going to feel especially silly if I do get shot tomorrow...

Well, simplifying problems down into a model like this can make them clearer, but it always requires a certain level of assumptions and generalizations. The assumptions inherent here that I don't quite buy are:
1) we can pour enough money into column A to make a significant global difference
2) that global depression will not also result in social/political/health catastrophes. He puts Col B negatives in a much stronger light than the Col A negatives, when the only difference I see there is really whether people achieved misfortune through weather/climate or depression/war (because desperation often drives people to war in hopes of bettering position or obtaining control of resources - not particularly far-thinking, but true)

Its all going to burn... so who cares anyway.

I do, since the burning is millions of years off.

This is simple game theory. You can apply it to any societal/governmental/political issue and come out with an appropriate course of action (assuming, of course, that you've made the right assumptions). I learned the various game theory techniques to problem solving as a college sophomore in a year long course instructed jointly by Robert Axelrod and Charles Ostrom. Its reliability is amazing. In fact, I often find myself using the theories to make the most mundane of choices.

I think one of the flaws with that is his assumption that the only responsible choice is to act given that we don't know if we're causing it and that the risk of not doing something outweighs the risk of doing something. Wouldn't finding out if we're causing it be more responsible than just picking the safest option? Although I guess most environmentalists would argue that there already is a consensus and his goal in this was to avoid that argument altogether. But that's the problem with trying to make things simpler than they really are.

Having said that, I think at the very least we should make the changes that are both environmentally and financially responsible, like CFL lightbulbs, hybrid cars, energy efficient appliances, etc.

If we followed this "logic" in the 70's we'd have safely prepared ourselves against the then "dire threat" of Global Cooling.

I think the real solution is to wrest control of this issue away from politicians, and talking heads and instill a sense of conservation and stewardship in our kids, ourselves, our families and our communities. Allowing "Global Warming" to BECOME an issue is what's wrong because we'll always be subject to potential manipulation.

This is all hog-wash.
Ice age, melting of the ice age. No humans to blame on that.
Hottest day in history was in the 1930's, who really knows. I don't think they had digital thermomitors in the 1700's.
What about the global cooling in the 1970's.
What are ya gonna do, but a carbon offset. Doesn't offset shit.
Hog-wash.

Lyle

I have been, long before the fall of communism and the Berlin wall, in East Germany. It was a pretty depressing place. At the fall of the wall, as reunification was happening, I lived in Germany. There were lengthy reports about the pollution that had occured in the East. There were not enough govt controls on waste and discharge and air pollution. I remember the pictures, and I remember what I saw with my own eyes. I compare that to the oh-so-tidy West Germany where I lived. The comparison was knife-edge sharp.

What's my point? Many billions of Deutschmarks and then Euros have gone into cleaning up the water and in retrofitting industry. Much has been achieved. It's not perfect. There are less polluting cars (the Trabant was a smoking nightmare) and more polluting trucks with increased business.

More clarity needed...The situation got horrible in the former GDR after WWII. It got better after reunification with the west.

Bringing it home...It cost the West Germans a Bundle. They still have ramifications from pollution today. But, it was fixable. Can we say the same thing for the ramifications of possible Global Climate Change in our future?

We don't have a Western Earth to look to for help?

OldPoet

I'm not a fan of any argument that says tomorrow is going to be worse than today whether it is preached from a pulpit or a podium.

On that note, I disagree with being lazy in our stewardship of the earth. The rapture is going to happen so let's drive SUVs anyways?!?! There's a popular saying amongst muslims- Allah alim- which means "God willing". My friend who was a soldier in Iraq found this phrase extremely troublesome because it removed all personal responsbility. To me, that's all I hear when someone says we can only pray, we shouldn't care because our treasures are in heaven, or the world is outside our control. We are here and we are doing this.

So let's do something about it.

"God? I hope so"

Sad and silly that so many folks waste time and energy worrying about humans bringing about catastrophic environmental change or, even sillier thinking we can stop it if it is coming. Living in fear of the unknown future, without a clear understanding of the known past. The flippant reference to global depression, reeks of oblivious affluence. While we waste money and energy fighting this paper tiger, our infrastructure continues to crumble, bridges collapse, roadways become more and more unsafe. Even more sadly, a world of oppressed and hurting people in present need. If you want to decide what to take action on try this:
Yes No
Hurting People /

True Expensive / Spend energy on Global Warming
Helps Need Now / People Continue in Need
Human Interaction / Children Starve
Positive Self Image/ Violent Unrest
Undisputed Favor of/ AIDS, Malaria, TB
CReator

False Money in Economy / Self Absorption
Human Interaction / Isolationism
Favor of creator / HD LCD TV's
Postitive Image / Disconnect from Humanity

So the choice is really - waste, time and resources on something that may or may not ever happen and you may or may not have an impact on changing, OR put aside the fear and focus resources and energy on changing the world one life at a time.

All you have to do is spread the word -- (crap that's not right) You actually have to do something for a real living breathing person right there in front of you. Maybe that's why folks are so worked up about climate change - it is not as messy or difficult to deal with. Buy a hybrid, burn ethanol, go solar, but keep your second coat, leave the samaritan by the road, etc.

Just an aside, about our silly world. In my community, the Capital Area Animal Welfare Society recently took top place in Burger Kings drive for the cause deal. CAAWS got more support than the Burn Unit at the local hospital. The local homeless shelter, hospice care center, etc. didn't even make the also ran list.

It just seems so damn silly.

H.Kay Rothkamm

The video is an environmental version of Pascal's Wager, which involves belief in God. To me the underlying question is "in this life are we to take well intended, thoughtful action?" And to me, our worth is in our relationship, actions and reactions to others (and God).

To care but not act, in a moral sense and an environmental sense, is the functional equivalent of not caring when viewed from the perspective of the outside world.

We then have to quibble about whether things like prayer and writing are "action".

Not being Taoist, I have to try to opt for action, in whatever small forms it may take.

Interesting stuff! (to me at least)
Dan

Just a comment on the video itself...

Man, final comments are a PAIN. A conclusion to an essay, closing remarks to a formal letter, final comments in an on-air story on the news -- the temptation to be cheesy is overwhelming. I, personally, admit that I have ended many solid pieces of writing with spectacularly underwhelming concluding remarks. I knew that I was doing it but couldn't stop, just because I needed to wrap things up but couldn't think of any other way to do it. Enter the cheese.

Forest Gump was lucky; he just ended his soliloquies with, "And that's all I have to say about that." Brilliant.

I liked the guy's boxes; I thought his delivery was confident but not pretentious; I thought his logic was very thought-provoking at the very least. But that conclusion... "even though I've never met you, my fate is tied to yours"? SPARE me the emotional manipulation. What a shame after such a solid piece of work.

For follow up videos by the same guy, addressing some of the comments raised here also, see

http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=wonderingmind42

Ralf

Hi you really had me (us?) going there, rlp..loved it..believed it (for about a nano second) Google Lark News or Virtual Pastor...we were not the only ones both amused and appalled...Gail (aka PrGirl)