This guy thinks he's a genius

[guartz]

For discovering Pascal's wager.. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI


oh lawd, some people.



edit: Oh man, he's actually gathering a following. That's pretty scary.

[Amarok]

Of course it's easy to yell "Do something!" but not suggest what needs to happen.

[guartz]

Well, don't get me wrong. I think his initial approach is what's called "a monstrous premiss"

However, his later videos where he is more of a scientists are actually kinda inspiring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjqikCEzP7w

[Aeromyth]

For discovering Pascal's wager.. lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI


oh lawd, some people.



edit: Oh man, he's actually gathering a following. That's pretty scary.

Thats a real application for it being used by economists.
Its actually kind of a basis for a lot of our current economic theory. Remember (if you're old enough to have cared at the time) when dept. stores suddenly stopped selling Freon based refrigerators? The U.S. government spent quite a bit of money and time calculating the actual cost of each alternative, just like his chart. They eventually decided that the money that they would be saving in various other places, because of the long term problems with continued use, would result in a net economic savings in the hundreds of billions (there was an actual, rather precise number, i just don't recall it). It didn't really matter for them weather global warming was happening, if they acted, they saved money. Thats also the reason we're actually seeing some emissions regulations developing now; studies are making it more possible to put a dollar figure on the cost of producing them.

So, anyone who's studied trends, or global warming is familiar with Pascal's theoretical influence, however rarely identified. If he has never heard of the formal theory as it relates to theism, I'm certain he's derived the idea from the various other places around him that cost/benefit analysis is used; however, he simply doesn't know the source to cite it. As it relates to this subject, i would venture to say its common knowledge.

The production of this video is quite obviously for purposes of education, and a 'call to action.' He even looks like an elementary school teacher.

Besides, theres the off chance he did develop a nearly identical archetype for decision making, if hes actually been living under a rock for the last 40 years of his life, and his first act in his new world is to produce a youtube video explaining it. If he did that, I'd call him a genius. lol



As a sort of aside, there has been a system of prevention in place for decades with regard to building sustainable resources. You may have guessed, its not being used like it should. Sustainable resources produce a small surplus in their profits known commonly as an 'economic rent.' That rent, theoretically, is then used to produce alternatives to the resource being used (hello fossil fuels!), but when that rent is in the billions of dollars each year, and the business which produce them are not the producers of the alternative, that rent can find its way into management pockets very quickly. When these rent incomes are not properly reinvested it becomes additional profit for the producers of the resource. Since the resource becomes more depleted, the rent increases (but investment into alternatives doesn't increase at the same level in reality) and eventually technology makes the cost of the alternative cheaper, without running out of the first resource. People switch use of the two resources, and the process repeats itself (forever?).
Hybrid cars are not an alternative to fossil fuels, they are a means of using existing technology to extend the fiscal lifespan of the resource. Since the hybrid is produced by the manufacturing partners of the producer of the resource, and it extends the time the petro companies can continue to charge their rent (read 'profit surplus' if you live in the real world) the solution of the hybrid appears to be win-win-win. The producers of the fuel get to be in business longer, the manufacturers get a new technology that make their old products obsolete (meaning people will want more new ones), and the consumer is under the impression that they are saving money and of course helping the environment for switching. This is probably the most successful act of 'rape' in human history. By using a hybrid car you are encouraging the mismanagement of the economic rent produced by petro-fuels into what are not real alternatives, and ultimately producing more harmful emissions long term. ITS A VERY BAD THING! Do not buy hybrid cars if you care about the environment. If you don't care about the environment i encourage you to drive the biggest most gas raping SUV you can find, so that people will be forced to use and find better real alternatives.
Thankfully the government isn't completely full of morons incapable of reason, they found a way to help remedy the situation. They tax fuel, and use that artificial rent to fund the research and development of an alternative resource (or so we would hope, but they too spend this rent improperly). Unfortunately political pressure forces the politicians in charge to use this rent in areas where the effects will be more immediately noticed (and often flaunted in election times). So, option 2 for the self proclaimed environmentalist is the pressure your government representatives into using their cut of this rent properly.

tl;dr? don't drive hybrids, the government is no better then oil companies, but at least your pressure can make them act properly.

[Maguspk]

I don't find his logic disturbing, it's well grounded at least and makes sense. The point was the worst situation is possible if we take "column B" approach but people argue the best outcome is only in b. However, the whole point of the exercise was to show risk analysis lol, so by simply choosing the one with the better outcome but risking a worse outcome you aren't managing risk very well (the possibility of something going wrong eh?) Anyway, ya it's probably dumb to choose to spend a ton of money on preventing something that might not really be as big an issue as it's cut out to be by some, however it could end up not costing so much and it could end up that simply doing enough research and control in the area will yield a good outcome to the problem, if it exists.

[Jotaru]

I agree with what he's saying here... shoot me for throwing in a perhaps very awkward analogy, but Poker players and other gamblers make these types of decisions all the time, and thats how the professionals, at least, make money. You don't just see which pots are the biggest and try to win every single one; actually, you try to reduce what you lose, minimize your risk, by eliminating the large risk factors... in other words, killing column b. You may never hit that huge paydirt all at once, but you'll never go bankrupt all at once, either. So that leaves you between making a little money and losing a little money, which evens out generally, until you factor in the skill in handling situations... yeah, poker isn't global climate change, but its relevant to show that just because Column B offers the biggest reward doesn't mean its the best choice. You have to weigh risk vs. reward. We could live without a few hundred dollars in our 'poker pot' if we win in column A; we can't live without the things we lose if we lose it in Column B.

[guartz]

Aero, that's pretty good. But I have a different view;

U.S economy is severely dependent on oil. Can't really break such a strong capital market trend and expect U.S dollar to stay stable across the globe, (pretty sure that's whats keeping dollar existing, such a overinflated currency has yet to survive in history for this long) because OIL is traded on the dollar worldwide. We are pretty close to approaching what's called Peak Oil, where there will be more people buying oil then selling, and whose ever country's currency is being traded for that oil gets to print however much currency they want. And don't mistake that this is a global economy issue, for U.S to continue to exist, we must have a global dollar hegemony.

So you are pretty correct that central planners will do whatever is more profitable.

Which will also explain why there hasn't been a hard push for conservation.