Quote:
Originally Posted by devils_advocate
I watched the video. I don't think it's the most terrifying video I've ever seen, but I got the point.
I am very pro-environment and think we do need to take drastic action on a number of environmental issues, not just the production of carbon dioxide.
BUT... I reject HOW this guy presents the point. If we followed this thought process on everything that had potential danger associated with it, we'd be spending unlimited time and resources on things that pose small risks -- just because something MIGHT happen in the future.
|
I agree with the above. His argument is flawed. Without assigning a probability to each row, choosing between columns cannot be done properly. Here is an example. I could get in a car accident while driving to work. The accident might happen or it might not. My actions would be either do nothing (continue driving to work), or take an action (walk 2 hours each way). Using that guy's logic, I should stop driving to work because if the accident happens, I could get killed, which is far worse than wasting 4 hours every day walking in bad weather. However, if you consider that the probability of me getting in a car accident is < 0.1%, and the probability of getting killed in that accident is even lower, taking action makes little sense. Having said that, I think that global warming presents a real danger, and it's a serious threat to our planet.