Blaise Pascal, a seventeenth century philosopher, theologian, mathematician, and physicist (1623-1662) proposed a wager as a way of defining how humans were betting with their souls on the existence of God.
Pascal said there were two choices one could make about God and each had its cost or benefit.
He posits that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell.)
One might make the same argument about Climate Change. If one changed the word God in the diagram with Man Caused Climate Change, it still applies.
I would argue that a rational society should strive to live as if anthropogenic activities are contributing to Climate change, work to develop alternative energy sources that reduce such impact, and eliminate dependence on fossil fuels.
If it turns out Climate change is not significantly impacted by human activity or beyond our ability to mitigate or limit it, it cost us little in terms of our future–and perhaps provides low-cost, alternative energy options and competition. Keep in mind, the fossil fuel industry has been purposely sowing doubt about climate change for decades to control the debate and stall any concerted efforts to find alternatives. (https://joebroadmeadowblog.com/2020/11/29/climate-change-altering-reality/)
Yet, if mitigation of anthropogenic activity contributing to climate change is effective and eliminates the acceleration of the process, we have gained a brighter, more naturally regulated environmental future.
Briefly, if we are accelerating Climate Change and do nothing, we lose. If we are not a significant contributor to climate change and our efforts to slow it are in vain, we still face an environmental catastrophe that may cause the extinction of man.
Wouldn’t it be prudent to take the only course of action which presents us with an opportunity to change the course of our future?
As Pascal said, our options are to wager we can receive infinite gains by slowing our effect on climate change or suffer infinite losses because we ignored the evidence of a global climate catastrophe.
Keep in mind, we are betting with our children’s and grandchildren’s lives, it might make the safe bet more critical than any short-term financial burden.
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
One of the most problematic aspects of discourse in politics today is the certainty people cling to in their positions and their insistence that any evidence to the contrary be absolute.
“The greater part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their opinions; and while they…have no idea of any counterpoising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the principles, to which they are inclined; not have they any indulgence for those who entertain opposite sentiments. To hesitate or balance perplexes their understanding, checks their passion, and suspends their action. They are, therefore, impatient to escape from a state, which to them is so uneasy; and they think, that they can never remove themselves far enough from it, by the violence of their affirmations and obstinacy of their belief. But could such dogmatical reasoners become sensible of the strange infirmities of human understanding, even in its most perfect state…such a reflection would naturally inspire them with more modesty and reserve, and diminish their fond opinion of themselves, and their prejudice against antagonists.”
David Hume
This is never more clear than in the discussion over climate change. When those who would deny Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI) and the acceleration of climate change are presented with the fact that 97% of peer-reviewed studies show clear evidence of human-caused damage to the environment in excess of natural phenomenon, they point to the 3% of studies which refute such causes and claim uncertainty.
The problem lies in the misunderstanding of scientific certainty. In his book, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, Phillip Goff writes,
“Conspiracy theories thrive in an environment in which certainty is expected, because this expectation sets up a demand that can never be met. When one realizes that little if anything is known with certainty, even whether one’s feet exist, one becomes more comfortable with probabilities that fall short of 100 percent. If you start from the idea that there is a core of scientific knowledge that is known with 100 percent certainty, then something accepted by,”only” 97 percent of scientists can seem too uncertain to warrant real commitment. But the skeptical philosopher knows that if she were to wait for certainty, she would never form a meaningful relationship for fear of befriending a philosophical zombie. To properly understand the human situation is to appreciate that less than certainty can be enough to trust, to engage. Indeed, a threshold of much less than certainty is very often enough to demand belief and practical engagement.”
The one certainty in the world is there is no certainty. Some theories and concepts are the most likely given the known set of facts. When assessing the risk of either inaction or measures contrary to these assertions, they are never the wisest course to take.
Galileo’s famous experiment on the speed with which objects of different weight fall at the same rate absent other forces (or in a vacuum to be technical) is a case where experiment showed “common sense” to be wrong.
Thus it is with many of the differences in politics and civil (or in some cases, uncivil) discourse today. What may seem likely, or common sense, often flies in the face of the evidence no matter that there is some uncertainty.
I am confident the earth will continue to rotate on its axis and orbit the sun for the remainder of my life, but I cannot be certain it will. The evidence of planetary mechanics demonstrates that orbits decay over time. Someday the Earth will no longer orbit the sun. When, I am not certain but think it likely it will happen someday.
I don’t doubt the evidence and analysis of astrophysicists, even if I may not fully understand it, because it contains an element of uncertainty. Like Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation, absent a preponderance of evidence to the contrary, is often the best choice.
But it is not certain.
Conspiracy theories thrive in an environment in which certainty is expected, because this expectation sets up a demand that can never be met.
Goff, Philip. Galileo’s Error
The fact that many Americans embrace conspiracy theories like QAnon, Black Helicopters, New World Order, the Illuminati, Free Masonry is a symptom of the infection of certainty.
They are certain these things are true because they are not 100% disproven. Bertrand Russell once argued the burden of proof should fall on the one making the assertion. This is because one cannot prove some things wrong. He wrote that if he were to assert that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because the assertion could not be proven wrong.
That something is not 100% provable does not render it useless to consider. Nor does the opposite apply; something that cannot be disproven does not make it factual.
People make choices every day that are uncertain. They choose to drive on highways where fatal accidents can happen. They swim in the ocean, where they are no longer the top tier in the food chain. They engage in activities with risk because they evaluate the risk and take action to mitigate it.
When presented with evidence of Dangerous Anthropic Interference approaching 97%, is the wisest course of action to ignore this because of a 3% chance it is wrong?
The only thing an expectation of certainty will do is cause us to do nothing, which will almost certainly cause us irreparable harm.
Are you so certain that you are willing to risk humanity’s future on such an unrealistic expectation?
JEBWizard Publishing (www.jebwizardpublishing.com) is a hybrid publishing company focusing on new and emerging authors. We offer a full range of customized publishing services.
Everyone has a story to tell, let us help you share it with the world. We turn publishing dreams into a reality. For more information and manuscript submission guidelines contact us at info@jebwizardpublishing.com or 401-533-3988.
Signup here for our mailing list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
Could it be the melting of the frozen Arctic Tundra is the source of COVID-19? Has climate change awakened a new plague on mankind?
In 1967 two scientists, Syukuro Manabe and Richard Wetherald, released a report that reverberates to this day. And like most evidence-based reporting perceived to impact business or economics in a negative way, it was ignored, demeaned, discredited, and challenged. Ultimately, more research confirmed the evidence, and corroborated the initial report. Leading to its wide acceptance.
They did not set out to establish the existence of global warming and anthropomorphic climate change. Manabe and Wetherald posed a question—what effect does the increase of Co2 have on the atmosphere—and followed the evidence. Interestingly enough, using mostly calculations on paper lacking access to sophisticated computers, they predicted a 2.36-degree rise in atmospheric temperature over fifty years.
Measurements taken in 2017, the fiftieth anniversary of their prediction, measured the actual rise at 2.57 degrees. The science predicting the rise was remarkably accurate and borne out by the verifiable numbers.
In Cosmos |Possible Worlds| by Ann Druyan, she points out that, based on this initial report,
“The larger community of climate scientists predicted these impacts of climate change. Heightened flooding of coastal cities, check. The mass death of coral reefs by ocean warming, check. The increase in intensity of catastrophic storms, check. Lethal heatwaves, droughts, and runaway wildfires of unprecedented magnitude, check. The scientists warned us. The corporations with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry and the governments they supported acted just like the tobacco companies. They pretended the science was unsettled and stalled for precious years.”
Druyan points out an even more ominous consequence of our failure to heed the evidence provided by science.
“An outbreak may begin when a virion, a mega-virus, dormant for over 100,000 years, is awakened as the permafrost of the Arctic melts away.”
Since the consensus—despite the spin by those with a political agenda to make this some intentional plot by China to obfuscate incompetence within the administration—is that this virus is neither man-made or genetically modified, it is a naturally occurring phenomenon.
And likely to occur again.
So, could it be an ancient virion* — the complete, infective form of a virus outside a host cell, with a core of RNA or DNA and a capsid—long dormant in the once frozen permafrost of the Arctic, now rises from a cryogenic slumber to ravage the world with a new virus?
We have re-embraced the benefits of science. We look to scientists and researchers for a vaccine to eliminate the threat of COVID-19. Shouldn’t we be willing to heed the warnings long available to us to prepare for what will inevitably be the next challenge facing the world?
Suppose the virus is “man-made,” not by our intent but by our willful ignorance?
Follow this blog for upcoming information on all new book releases. And please share this with readers everywhere. All comments are welcome. Or if you would like write a piece to be posted on my blog please send me a message.
Signup here for my email list for information on all upcoming releases, book signings, and media appearances.
