Using reasoning like Blaise Pascal’s famous ‘wager’ ( see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/), let’s use that approach in dealing with our environment, and global warming.
Starting with the observation that warming is occuring, there are two possibilities:
A: Human activity(production of carbon dioxide) is having an impact, or
B: It is not.
We have two alternatives:
1: We can reduce our carbon dioxide output by reducing our use of fossil fuels.
2: We can maintain our current policy of using oil and coal.
Arranging into a table:
A B
1: Use non-fossil fuels: Win& Win – see A1 below Win – see B1 below
2: Use fossil fuels Lose & lose Lose- see A2 below Lose – see B2 below
A1: Win & Win: Not only do we protect the future of our species, but we improve sustainablity and reduce dependence on other countries.
A2: Win: We improve sustainablity and reduce dependence on other countries.
B1: Lose & Lose: We have an unsubstainable economy, dependent on other countries, and the future of our species is threatened.
B2: Lose: We have an unstainable economy, dependent on other countries.
With these results, our decision must be to reduce the use of carbon fuels. In addition, applying Occam’s razor: (see
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam’s+razor),
we don’t even need the supposition that global warm is occuring- it is still a benefit to convert to non-fossil fuels. Q.E.D.
charles' log 