With the Global Warming debate front and center this week, I am reminded of how arguments on the subject find themselves rooted almost entirely in science and risk analysis with little consideration of consequence. While I am well aware that ideology and money, unfortunately, play large roles in shaping the scientific arguments, the Global Warming debate is most prudently framed by an analysis of uncertainty and consequence.
Perhaps the greatest lesson in uncertainty and consequence is found in Pascal's Wager:
"Belief is a wise wager. Granted that faith cannot be proved, what harm will come to you if you gamble on its truth and it proves false? If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation, that He exists."
Pascal's Wager underscores, quite effectively, the human folly of not prudently measuring the consequences of our choices in relation to their potential outcome. To Pascal, the consequences of a choice may be far more important than the likelihood of its outcome.
To frame the Global Warming decision further, consider a few choice excerpts from one of my favorite pieces on risk and uncertainty:
Typically, in situations of choice, risk and uncertainty both apply. Many situations of choice are unprecedented, and uncertainty about the underlying relation between cause and effect abounds...
Although risk is quantifiable, uncertainty is not. Rather uncertainty arises from imperfect knowledge about the way the world behaves. Most importantly, uncertainty relates to the questions of how to deal with the unprecedented, and whether the world will behave tomorrow the way it behaved in the past.
To summarize, decisions are not always best made in light of empirical study. In the face of uncertainty and the unprecedented, the prudent decision is simply to err to the side of caution.
If humans take the position that their activities are adversely affecting the earth's atmosphere and choose to change their behavior, what is the worst that can happen, even if they are wrong in this assumption? If, conversely, humans take the position that their activities have no adverse impact on the earth's atmosphere and choose not to change their behavior, what is the worst that can happen if they are wrong?
Certainly, Pascal would say that wagering on God's existence, even if it can't be proven, is still the most prudent, considering the potential outcome if one's assumption is wrong.
In other words, if you find yourself on the wrong side of a particular argument or decision, which side would you rather be on? Which has the worst potential outcome or consequence?------------------------------------------------------
A portion of this post consists of edited portions of a previous post, titled Finding God in Behavioral Finance....