Is this the most terrifying video you'll ever see?

OneST8 · 10-09-07, 05:16 PM

YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Filatus · 10-09-07, 05:21 PM

Seen it before and I think it's great. Really shows the logic to look past your own generation versus looking out for just number one.

darkstorme · 10-09-07, 05:24 PM

Simple game theory as applied to climate change. Basically the Hawk and Dove game, where the player takes the position of one of the two sides.

It makes perfect sense, really.

Redhawk · 10-09-07, 05:33 PM

Of course, this is an excellent application of logic -- risk analysis at its finest. BUT humanity, mob mentality defies logic. No mob, especially when they are passionate about something, will ever listen to logic. Just look at the world around you....

Skywatcher · 10-09-07, 05:43 PM

The only problem with the arguement is that the same arguement could be made about any number of potential global catastrophies from a pure logic perspective. Asteroids hitting the earth, aliens attacking, Judgement from god. Using the same purely logical argument there are all sorts of things we should be lobbying for. The missing piece is the likelihood of the catasrophy actually occurring and that's why the debate over Global Climate Change is an important one. Risk management is not a row only or column only thought process. Here's an example:

There is a finite real chance that a plane will fall from the sky and land on my house which would be catastrophic. The argument in the video would lead me to believe the only logical course of action would be to build a plane proof structure around my house to prevent this risk and the consequences but I choose to accept the risk because the cost is too high and the likelihood too low.

Likewise we need to understand the potential for the risk before we make risk management decisions. Just some perspective on fuzzy logic decisions.

darkstorme · 10-09-07, 06:17 PM

Well, in the first of your examples, steps have been taken. In the latter two, there is nothing hinting at their immanent arrival, so those arguments are more or less straw men. Yes, they might happen. But the probabilities involved are astronomical (no pun intended.)

The chance of aliens invading in the upcoming century, with the assumption that (a) Aliens have not yet visited earth, (b) Aliens exist, and (c) Aliens have the means to visit earth, is (with a little BotE math) one in forty-five million, give or take, since they've not yet visited our 4.5 billion-year-old planet.

The judgment of God really can't have a probability assigned to it, as the biblical God could be capricious at times - but as there's really nothing we can do to ward against it if it were to happen, it really doesn't fit in with plausible disasters.

As for being hit and killed by a falling airplane - the chance of any one person being hit (annually) is one in twenty-five million. (This means that about 250 people are killed annually by falling airplanes, from an actuarial standpoint.) This still means that if you live to see a century pass, the chances that you will die in some manner NOT airplane-impact-related are (1 - (1/25M))^100 = 99.9996% (or about 1 in 250 000, from an actuarial standpoint). It's unlikely that this would ever feature on your life insurance.

However, one thing that IS likely to feature on your life insurance is climate change. These are the people whose livelihoods depend on statistical analysis. I really don't think anything that has them this worried falls into the same category as your knock-em-down examples.

While I agree that the logic is simplistic, the conclusion is accurate, given that the probability that climate change will happen, and be detrimental to the species as a whole, is, at the MOST optimistic, hovering in the mid-twenties. (Realistically, it may be a forgone conclusion.)

As in the classic Hawk and Dove example, "Chicken" - we don't know if the other car will swerve. We'll say that there's a 75% chance they will. But sitting in the car with us is the future of the planet. How sure are you that they'll turn the wheel?

Edit: Sorry, to clarify, this was meant as a response to Skywatcher's post.

Skywatcher · 10-09-07, 07:05 PM

Exactly my point darkstorme. You made estimations on the probability of each of the occurences when evaluating each of the scenarios that I proposed and dismissed taking action based on those probabilities. That was what was missing from the video and why the debate is so critical. Your percentage estimation on whether Global Climate Change will have catastrophic consequences is the central point of the debate. Some very smart people think the chance is 0%. Some other very smart people think the chance is 100%. For the guy in the video to push people to public action without even addressing how he would determine the probability of the occurence encourages people to not think and just act based on a simplistic scheme. I think there are more responsible approaches.

There are other big problems in the world and limited resources, Aids, Hunger, Genocide, that sort of thing among many others. Expending resources to prevent Global Climate change takes resources away from other efforts since the amount of resources is finite. So we have to decide how best to expend limited resources. I think at this point there is enough information on Global Climate Change to warrant additional research but not demand drastic lifestyle changes that have other negative consequences. That's just my opinion. Once there is strong evidence of a likely risk then action will seem more prudent but for now I have not been convinced that this particular issue is more that a political tool for some to persuade others to follow their particular agenda.

Nyralotep · 10-09-07, 07:15 PM

Given the fact that a small percentage of people in both camps have the potential for billions in profits make the cynic in me come out. Plus I tend to not like anyone that uses religion to shut up their opponents from having a rational debate. And yes I believe there are components of the GW crowd that are religious.

Having said that I certainly believe there are things we can and have done to make the environment better.

Drizzlin · 10-09-07, 07:28 PM

There is no doubt that Global Warming is occuring, the only real question is if it can be stopped and whether or not we can do anything about it. 99.99% of the scientific community all agree that global warming is happening. The .01%, led by George Bush are not worth trying to convince.

Skywatcher · 10-09-07, 08:12 PM

Another important question in the debate is whether or not a temperature increase is a bad thing. There was an ice age once and now it's warmer and things are better. Also it's not clear that this is not just part of a climate cycle that takes place well outside of our control. There's definitely change going on an I think even George Bush would agree with that. The questions that need to be answered are, Is the change bad?, and Can we do anything about it? Those are the ones that still remain to be answered in a solid way. The fact is there is still a lot about the climate that we don't understand and the correlations that have been drawn have not been turned into solid causalities. There's lot's left out there to learn and we might find out that no action is required and we might find out that no matter what action we take the outcome will be the same. These are just possible outcomes.

Pseudonym · 10-09-07, 08:37 PM

Or ..... we could just answer yes or no to OneST8's poll, go read this to see this thread's inevitable conclusion and instead use your time to go thank some of my other posts at random.

darkstorme · 10-09-07, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pseudonym

Or ..... we could just answer yes or no to OneST8's poll, go read this to see this thread's inevitable conclusion and instead use your time to go thank some of my other posts at random.

*laughs* Fair enough. While I hold some strong opinions on this subject, I won't subject those on the forum to them.

No random thankings, though!

Stephen_Zuckerman · 10-09-07, 10:01 PM

Never random.

Edit: Okay, so never in a serious discussion. <<;

Chongo · 10-10-07, 12:35 AM

Here's my recommendation.

If you're going to post from here on out, please put a preface in front of each post containing:

- What sort of vehicle you drive
- If you regularly purchase carbon offsets for that vehicle from companies like terrapass.
- If you propel yourself to work everyday or use public transport
- If you live off the grid, have catch/greywater systems, solar panels or other alternative energies, are kicking back into the grid, or have any of the other notable systems at play in the way you're living your life
- If you've actually created or engineered machines, systems, etc that are part of the overmentioned solution
- Any other notable "I am acting on what I am preaching" items

Now, if you *are* in fact working towards your own solutions, but really feel the need to keep at the argument click here. After watching this, smile a bit more as you post up on these issues. Then - suggest solution sets. Don't point fingers, don't say it's his or her fault, don't bring in theories that are so massively general that all it does is raise the pickets on both sides. Post up solution sets, creative ideas on what folks can do in their own home or community, and then maybe something will catch on with another person. And lo and behold.... you've actually taken strides forward instead of mulling about on the guy or gal you disagree with... who happens to be living exactly the same way you probably are!

That's my take for this evening at least. I'd love for folks to share ideas on affordable things I could be doing. Most of my solutions involve building a new house and what I can do there... which is still a million in cash flows off unfortunately. That and I live in a very very snowy community, so the only solution I have on the massive vehicle I own is to purchase carbon offsets. I don't know enough about alternative energy sources for my existing home, and would love to hear what folks have to share. If you're entirely opinion... I ain' got time for you bub.

Act in your own home first!

Lydyn · 10-10-07, 01:03 AM

My dad and I have theorize (and on a general scale, it seems to be true - i.e. There are always exceptions, but this isn't the point) that the higher the living standards of one's self, the more superficial one's worries become.

Good example: Person A, a person that's barely able to pay the rent or for food for him/herself.

Person B, a person who brings in a million dollars a year, lives comfortably, have servants, fancy cars, and so on.

Person A, quite frankly won't give a donkey's behind whether his food is from Subway, Sonic, the meat shop down the road, or a Turkish bazaar. He wants food and instincts will tell him to eat whatever he can afford so he can continue to live.

Person B, will be more prone to being a vegetarian, only eating steak and eggs in the morning, refuse to drink water, or never order from Fast-food.

- - - - -
No, I'm not implying this concern is superficial, however ... I am saying that unless this can be proven with some sort of percentage, I'll bet you anything that most of those people who are homeless and barely getting enough money won't care about this at all until or unless they're precious few dollars are wisked away.

Does this have any relevance to any arguments presented on this topic? Absolutely not.

I thought I'd simply share that bit of knowledge.

- - - - -

My view, you ask? What happens, will happen ... I'll just go with the flow of it. I'm a bit of the Person A. I don't have the money to be worrying about what's going on. I'll just enjoy what life gives me and try not to complain too much.

-Lydyn

Nyralotep · 10-10-07, 06:43 AM

The last global environmental rush to judgment cost, by UN numbers, thousands, if not millions of people their life from malaria alone and they are now reversing their course.

We need to take this one more seriously than that one and gather data about a system we still don't fully understand so people don't suffer from unintended consequences, in my opinion at least.