Pascal's Wager

Valmont

Considering the author of the video constructed it to get around the thorny subject of the science of climate change, you're missing the point. Also, saying climate change is a FACT is a pointless statement; are you simply stating that the climate is changing? That we can stop it? That the world will end in a storm of hellfire? I think you are exemplifying the vagaries of climate alarmism in accepting even Pascal's wager as an argument to justify an expansion of the state. That's the danger with Pascal's wager, it sounds nonsensical when you apply it to God but slap it on some popular cause and up pops all sorts of sophistry in its defense. That's why I thought it would be interesting to post that here- I knew someone would defend it.

I'm not going to argue with you about the validity of saying that climate change is a FACT because the author of the video is openly and admittedly trying to circumvent the science by placing Pascal's wager in front of us. That's the trick with climate change enthusiasts, the less about the science the better, hence fast-tracking the whole thing to FACT (now with capital letters for extra gravitas) in such a short time.

Joe1919

Re. The 'weapons of mass destruction', I would like to play the devils advocate here. I am putting this model forward to illustrate the kind of utilitarian thinking that can lead to certain conclusions that are very undesirable from a moral perspective.

Lets say the president of the USA suspects that a small country is acquiring weapons of mass destruction. So he gathers together all his experts and they tell him that there is a 4% chance that this small country will have such weapons and there is a 25% chance that they will use them against the USA with an estimated loss of life of 20 million US citizens.

His military advisers also inform him that he could make a pre-emptive invasion of this country to take out these weapons and he would be certain of winning because this country does not presently have the weapons. They estimate that about 30,000 US citizens maximum will lose their lives in the invasion. ( & perhaps about 70,000 of the smaller countries citizens)

Diplomatic relation between these two countries are non-existent and the country will not allow in any 'foreign' inspectors.

So the president reckons that he has only two choices and he will do the calculus.

1 Invade......... ......... Loss = 30,000 US lives. (& 70,000 of the smaller countries )
2 Do not invade. .......Loss = 20 million X 4% X 25% = 200,000 US lives. (taking the 'odds' into account)

The president decides in this circumstance that it is best to 'wager' on war so he prepares to make a pre-emptive strike on this country.

recedite

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Climate change IS happening.

Some climate change is happening. But there is debate as to whether it is just part of the normal fluctuation, or the start of the catastrophic, irreversible type.

recedite

Joe1919 wrote: »

So the president reckons that he has only two choices and he will do the calculus.

1 Invade......... ......... Loss = 30,000 US lives. (& 70,000 of the smaller countries )
2 Do not invade. .......Loss = 20 million X 4% X 25% = 200,000 US lives. (taking the 'odds' into account)

I presume the third choice of sanctions and talks have failed.
The chances of the Iranians small country launching an unprovoked attack on the USA would be smaller than 25%, unless they were really aggressive, in which case they would deserve the attack.
Bear in mind that they would be assured of 100% destruction themselves if they attacked, which is more like Pascals Wager for them.
During the Cold War the MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy of USA / USSR was a roughly equal chance of destruction for each side, and that was enough to act as a deterrent.

So lets say the aggression potential of said small country is only 4%;
1 Invade......... ......... Loss = 30,000 US lives. (& 70,000 of the smaller countries )
2 Do not invade. .......Loss = 20 million X 4% X 4% = 32,000 US lives. So, taking the financial costs into account, not worth it.