You gotta ask yourself... do ya feel lucky?

[afghooey]

Well... Do ya?

The Game We're Playing

Ignore the title of the video. Don't let fear decide your course of action, but logic. Can you poke a hole in this guy's argument?






P.S. I didn't post this in politics, because I think it's far beyond just a political issue at this point. If a mod decides to move this... fine, whatever. But I'd like to politely request that this stay in the lounge if possible. Thanks.

afghooey Reviewed by afghooey on 06-27-2007. You gotta ask yourself... do ya feel lucky? Well... Do ya? The Game We're Playing Ignore the title of the video. Don't let fear decide your course of action, but logic. Can you poke a hole in this guy's argument? Rating: 5

[Reefer Rogue]

Very interesting, the premises seems to follow to the conclusion.

[afghooey]

Veeeeery interesting.

It does seem to skip the probabilities of each of the events, though. But, I guess you could work out a more complex version, with probabilities factored in.

The probabilities are hard to know, for a few reasons. Mainly, it's hard to know if the data we have reflects reality or if it false information fueled by some other agenda ($$$).

Now, the scientific concensus is that humans are causing the climate change. The question is... What would scientists possibly have to gain from such a claim if it's really a lie? Is there evidence that points to monetary gains for them should people start making more environmentally friendly choices? If (worst case scenario of column A) we end up in economic collapse because this isn't true, would any monetary gain even be relevant? Why would anyone propose such a drastic and potentially terrifying idea solely for their own monetary gain if it's highly doubtful that they'll gain anything?

On the other hand, we DO have irrefutable evidence that oil companies and the individuals who are funded by those companies would stand to lose a LOT of money if people were to curb their fuel use. So, it becomes questionable whether or not their agenda is for the good of the economy or for the benifit of their own personal monetary gains (though the two do go hand in hand). In the first column, it's doubtless that they'll lose money whether the concensus turns out to be right or wrong. In the second column, they have a chance of gaining money if the concensus turns out to be wrong. If it turns out to be right, however... well, it won't be pretty for anyone.

First column, first row: Oil companies lose
First column, second row: Oil companies lose
Second column, first row: Oil companies win
Second column, second row: Oil companies lose

Which column do you think the oil companies will chose? And if we go along with their choice of column 2, what do WE risk to lose?

[4twentE]

Once again, interesting. Wonder what else that chart/procedure/whatever could be applied to.

[jdub61]

dirty harry! i loooove that movie!
you've got to ask yourself one question punk, do ya feel lucky? well, do ya!?

[Coelho]

I agree completly with him... but, as afghooey says, the oil companies will do everything they can to minimize their costs, even if it mean the destruction of our world as we know... for me, there is not any hole in his argument, its perfectly true.

Wonder what else that chart/procedure/whatever could be applied to.

That procedure is used in games theory, for choosing the best decision to take, based upon risks of winning and losing. It can be applied to everything you wish. Thats a logical and math-based procedure (even if he didnt put numerical values for the probabilities of each one thing happens, what could be done), so thats why i think its an undeniable (cant find better word) argument.