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

Very compelling reasoning about whether to act on global warming.

I think that brettjor’s response is still thinking in the top row (that climate change is not happening). In a world where countries are getting wiped out by rising oceans and once-in-a-decade weather extremes happen once a week, any improvement to the economy is far outweighed. Column B is still a much greater risk. If anything, this argument actually helps make Column A more attractive (by reducing the risk/impact to economy). So it shows we should act.

Micseydel has a point about the possibility of climate change may not be fixable – really what that does is remove the smiley face in the bottom left square and sticks us in the bottom row, because in this scenario climate change is inevitable. So really this means that the whole argument is moot, we’re screwed anyway. And I think it’s human nature that we would want to try to act even if we’re doomed.

His second point is interesting, that also removes or reduces the smiley from the bottom left square, but leaves the top right smiley intact. I guess the bottom left is still at least slightly better than the top left. So really the choice would now come down to a harder one – the benefits and the risk are both greater on column B. The only thing I can say there is, democratic decisions don’t tend to be high benefit, high risk, they tend to be low benefit, low risk – so A would seem more likely in that scenario.

I think Micseydel misses the point in his last paragraph though – the presenter did not try to include statistics. Maybe if they were included it would be easier to choose. But my view is that if that bottom right square is even only a one in 10 billion possibility, I’d rather have the other column and act.

Anyway, overall I think this is a great way to stimulate debate by looking at it from a different angle.