SOCIAL: Fwd: The Power of the Internet - The Logic of a Sitcom

[Eric Arons]

here's his more recent attempt to address randall's comments.  the other
video is old, and he did get lots of comments apparently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

On Dec 21, 2007 1:12 AM, Randall Isaac <randall at deadletter.com> wrote:

> Nothing like a midnight debate  :-)
>
>    My example is of course intended to be silly to illustrate the point
> that reducing complex choices to 4 boxes oversimplifies the situation to
> the point that you can argue for any course of action you want.
>
>    While there is finally little dispute that global warming is
> occurring, there are many questions about how far, how fast, what can be
> accomplished with how much money, and where can the effort do the most
> good.  For example, some economists argue that money spent on reducing
> CO2 would be better spent on mitigating it's effects; is it worth
> spending the money for a 25% CO2 reduction, a 50% reduction, what?
> Let's say the earth is going to warm 5 degrees over the next century,
> but for $500 billion we can reduce it to 4 degrees.  Maybe the effect on
> the earth between those two temperatures is so small we should spend the
> money on better irrigation, relocating people, etc instead.
>
>    In order to represent all these choices the guy should have a board
> with 16 or 32 squares.  But remember, his whole goal was to simplify the
> choices so much that everyone would agree on one course of action.  If
> he expands the boxes to show the real probabilities and possibilities,
> there goes the consensus.  This isn't a discussion about global warming,
> this is a discussion about whether this guy's 4-box whiteboard talk is
> going to end the debate.  And it's not.
>
> Randall
>
>
> adrian cotter wrote:
> > Isn't that a straw man attack, Randall?
> >
> > His initial premise is that there is certain level of reasonableness
> > to the proposition that global warming exists.
> >
> > There is very little reasonableness to the idea that we might be
> > subjected to an invasion from ETs. No debates at the UN (so far as I
> > know), no IPAI (international panel on alien invasion) Reports, no
> > questions in presidential debates on the subject. As sad as it is for
> > me to say, there is no hard evidence of any aliens out there at all,
> > let alone ones who like us with a nice Chianti.
> >
> > Whereas, in terms of global warming, there is at least evidence that
> > our climate does indeed change, and can have drastic consequences for
> > the planet and people even.
> >
> > However, I would be willing to help you do a response video :-)
> > -- he could strengthen his argument a little I think. Think of all
> > the fun we could have with tinfoil hats.
> >
> > Adrian
> >
> > On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:02 AM, Randall Isaac wrote:
> >
> >
> >>     Unfortunately, comments have been disabled for this video.  The
> >> presenter asked for the flaw in his argument,  so here it is:  the
> >> problem is that he leaves out all the probability calculations and
> >> opportunity costs for the choices, and without them, the argument is
> >> meaningless.
> >>
> >>     Allow me to illustrate:  let's say I use his 4-box method to
> >> analyse
> >> a call for a national emergency plan to protect our planet from
> >> invaders
> >> from the Andromeda Galaxy.  I demand that tinfoil hats be
> >> distributed to
> >> all 6 billion humans plus 10,000,000 handheld laser disintigrator
> >> weapons be developed in a giant Manhatten project to give to our
> >> armies
> >> to defend us.
> >>
> >>     I will use the following argument: either we are invaded by
> >> spacemen
> >> or we are not.  If we do spend $500 billion on weapons and there is no
> >> invasion then all we've done is waste the money (that could have been
> >> spent on other things like global warming); but if we don't spend the
> >> money and we are invaded, the result is world domination by the
> >> Andromedens and all of us eventually rounded up and eaten with some
> >> fava
> >> beans and a nice Chianti. Nothing less than the survival of mankind is
> >> at stake; therefore it's completely obvious that we should spend the
> >> $500 billion and start wearing our tinfoil hats immediately.
> >>
> >> Pass this along to all of your friends.
> >>
> >> Randall
> >>
> >> Brooke Kuhn wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI
> >>>
> >>> This is definitely worth watching.
> >>> Keep it moving too.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Brooke Kuhn, MS, CHES
> >>> 143 San Carlos St.
> >>> San Francisco, CA 94110
> >>> 415.252.9047
> >>> BrKuhn at post.harvard.edu <mailto:BrKuhn at post.harvard.edu>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Social mailing list
> >>> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> >>> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Social mailing list
> >> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> >> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Social mailing list
> > Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> > http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20071221/3ba25390/attachment-0002.htm>