Applying Pascal’s Wager to Global Warming
Stright out of the “Dam, I wish I’m the one who thought of that” files, comes a science teacher who takes a look at the global warming argument (not global worming itself) as a simplified cost-benefit argument the same way as noted scientician Pascal made his argument for the benefit of belief in god — the benefits of believing greatly outweigh the benefits of not believing.
Roll that beautiful bean footage:
The only issue I have with this, as I post, think about it, and then edit, is that this assumes that if Global Warming is real, it’s something we can fix. That’s a little too much dewy-eyed optimism for me, since there’s favorable data that we can make things better, but not stop them. We can make it our grand kids’ problem though, and since they’ll be in the future they might have better ideas. Or they can stave it off until their grandkids’ robot overlords protectors fix it.