From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 12:04:31 MDT
On Tuesday, July 23, 2002, at 04:04 am, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Warnings have a normal distribution of severity, but the real severity
> of the problem is some unknown number (ideally correlated with the
> mean). This means that there are always plenty of warnings more extreme
> than necessary (and many too mild). Since there are clear public choice
> benefits to make drastic and strong warnings it is likely that on
> average there will be more overly extreme warnings than realistic ones.
I agree totally. I wasn't as clear as I could have been. There is
certainly a lot of pseudo-science floating around, even on this list.
We constantly have to be on guard. It is difficult to make sure one has
real data on which to base decisions. It is difficult to keep from
believing something just because it has been said so many times that
"everyone knows its true."
> Quite a few of
> the global environment reports released now (in time for the
> environmental summit) are useless in this respect, since they base
> themselves on higly spurious measures
Agreed. But I also think it is a mistake to go too far the other way
and assume that all global warming is false. There are some definite
signs. Most of the glaciers are gone in the U.S. Glacer Parks.
Glaciers that have been around for an extremely long time are now
disappearing. Signs like these indicate that we are warmer now than in
a long time. Even if this is some natural cycle with very long
duration, it does seem to be a massive change that we have not seen
(since before any records were made). Such a major change is obviously
a threat to humanity and our survival. To dismiss it as "natural", or
to refuse to spend any money on it, or fo refuse to study it would be an
unwarranted mistake. But I am afraid that this is a popular stance
among American transhumanists.
We really have to distinguish between what is scientifically arguable as
true, and merely what we want to be true.
> Also, as the Athens example show, the developments that make doomsayers
> wrong usually doesn't happen because people react to the doomsayers and
> invent better stuff (or even that rising resource prices make them
> develop better stuff), but due to the ordinary process of invention and
> competition. The times where doomsayers have actually been relevant is
> for specific problems like Y2K and the ozone layer.
I am not sure. The only reason the former example occurred through
"ordinary process of invention" is because food and firewood are local
obvious problems. Every local person tries to find a way to solve their
own needs. This does not mean that the warnings weren't necessary.
Instead, I think this merely indicates that the warnings were obvious
everywhere and demanded personal attention. Global Warming or the ozone
layer are harder to detect locally, and harder to fix locally. This may
be the main distinguishing factor between problems that get addressed
and problems that get ignored.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:38 MST