Quote:
Originally Posted by snootchiebootchies
I said the sacrifices are little compared to the worst case consequence. The worst-case scenario is co-extinction, or the 'extinction domino effect', or in other words, mass extinction of human beings. I'm not saying that is likely at all. But if that's the worst-case scenario, then all climate change actions are pretty trivial in comparison.
|
You also said that you look at action on climate change as something akin to Pascal’s Wager. So that we are clear, Pascal’s Wager concerns the belief in God. If you believe in God and it turns out that God exists, then you are granted eternal happiness. If you believe in God and it turns out that God does not exist, then nothing happens. On the other hand, if you don’t believe in God and it turns out that God exists, then you suffer eternal damnation. If you don’t believe in God and it turns out that God does not exist, then once again, nothing happens. As such, it is a safer bet to believe in God. Agree?
If so, for taking action on climate change to be akin to Pascal’s Wager, you are stating that to act on climate change and have climate change in fact not be a serious problem would be no different than to not act on climate change and for climate change to not be a serious problem. So once again, I ask you, what do you believe the sacrifices are of acting on climate change now?