Yes. This is exactly what I’ve thought, except that he explains it much, much better.
What’s the worst that could happen?
26 thoughts on “What’s the worst that could happen?”
Comments are closed.
Yes. This is exactly what I’ve thought, except that he explains it much, much better.
Comments are closed.
The world is such a better place because of highly qualified geeks.
Thank you.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately in the more abstract sense of, “why is everyone’s first reaction to any warning, ‘naaah! you’re overreacting!'” Lots of very bad things happen every day–why do most people not seem to realize it is entirely possible for very bad things to happen *and impact them directly?*
Great video.
Interesting. But there are some flaws.
For example, it is certainly possible that human-caused global warming is the only thing preventing another ice age. Therefore, in the bottom left column, the worst that could happen if we act to stop global warming is an ice age, which could be even more devastating than the global warming calamities. That means, according to his logic, that it’s actually better to choose the right column–take no action.
But his logic is flawed.
Let’s take an example from everyday life: you have a headache. It could be a common cold (row A), or it could be a serious disease such as bird flu (row B).
So you must decide whether to seek treatment from a doctor (column 1) or not (column 2).
What’s the worst that could happen?
A1 – You spend time and money going to the doctor. You may also waste some of the doctor’s time and other resources that could have been used to help someone who is seriously ill.
A2 – You save the time and money you would have spent going to the doctor.
B1 – You get treatment and your life is saved. (Actually, there’s also the possibility that after all the expense of treatment, you still die. But we’ll choose a successful scenario like he did in the video.)
B2 – You become patient zero for a pandemic that kills millions of people.
Obviously, the worst case in column 2 is worse than the worst case in column 1.
Therefore, (by the logic he presents in his video) every time you have a headache, you should seek treatment from a doctor.
But that doesn’t make sense in real life. If everyone followed that decision-making process, our healthcare system would be overwhelmed by people who are not seriously ill seeking treatment when they don’t need to.
It’s necessary to compare not just worst cases, but also probabilities.
Let’s say I give you two choices, X and Y.
With X, the worst-case scenario is that you’ll lose $100.
With Y, the worst-case scenario is that you’ll lose $200.
Obviously X is the better choice, right?
Not so fast.
Let’s say that with X, the chance of losing $100 is 99%, and the chance of not losing anything is 1%.
With Y, the chance of losing $200 is 1%, and the chance of not losing anything is 99%.
In that case, making a decision based on the worst-case scenario would be stupid–Y is clearly the better choice.
Now, please understand that I’m not saying anything about what the probability of catastrophic climate change is. I’m merely pointing out that that logic used in the video is flawed because it doesn’t take probabilities into account.
Thank you Eric James Stone.
What Eric said. Exactly (darn you smart people beating me to the punch!). It’s all a matter of probabilities. Of course, in this case, I think the probabilities associated with climate change are heavily in favor of the “true” scenario…
I’m sorry, Eric, JP and momk, I think you are missing one of the points of his argument. At this point, it is not possible to tell what the probability of either scenario is. In a case like that, this is a reasonable logical progression to follow.
Now, why do I say it’s not possible to tell? Because you and I are both reasonable, intelligent people and we’ve been reading the same material. I think that human caused global warming is true and you think it’s false. In fact, I would venture to guess that if we were to lay down our guess of probabilities they would be diametrically opposed. We are just a small sampling of people.
But, let me grant you the probability argument.
What number would you put on the probability that climate changed is human caused? 10%? 17%?
I picked those because those are the ones associated with lung cancer from smoking. They may be small, but the worst case scenario there is enough to keep me from ever picking up a cigarette. Those are probability numbers that we can know, for certain, because there’s a lot of samples from which to get the data.
There aren’t any with climate change. We’ve got one planet and one chance to get it right and no way of knowing until afterwards. This isn’t like having a headache at home. It’s like having a headache in a room full of doctors who are all arguing about whether you should be examined or not because it might be birdflue. You can’t know who is right until you get the exam or…you can wait and see what develops.
In a room full of informed opinion telling you contradictory things, what would you choose to do? That’s what we’ve got now.
What’s the worst that can happen?
Thank you, Mary.
Additionally, I’m perplexed at the focus on the question of whether or not climate change is caused by humans. Incidentally, I believe the evidence is quite persuasive that it is.
But that’s a moot point. What’s more generally accepted is that whatever the cause, the climate is changing. And in the likely event that current trends continue, we’re looking at grave consequences arriving in a matter of a few decades, which is not a moot period of time for most of us.
So the real question is not whose fault it is, but whether it is in our power to prevent or mitigate it. Fortunately, human response to past, smaller ecological challenges suggests that it is. We just have to take the highly-unusual-in-human-history step of making economic decisions whose payoff is more than a couple of business quarters down the line.
Mary,
I think the question is, “who are you trying to convince?” Obviously, those of us who believe that man-made climate change is a virtual certainty, like me, are easily persuaded. The “Worst-Case Scenario” argument also works well with those who believe the probabilities approximate somewhere around 50/50 (or at least reasonably high on the True side), or those who are completely incapable, for reason of the warring sides, to assign probabilities. And in many ways that is who we are going to reach, so the argument is successful.
Where it fails is in reaching those who already tend to assign a low probability to the “True” scenario. Perhaps a probability of 17% would be enough for us to say “okay, let’s go with column A,” but at a certain point, the probability of any given event drops too low to make the net return on risk worthwhile. Thus, though an enormous asteroid might wipe out all life on earth, we are not spending our time creating an anti-asteroid defense system, because it just isn’t terribly likely in the near future and we have limited resources. That’s what the skeptics are saying– “in reality, probability is very small.” they’re wrong, but that’s what they’re saying.
Another logical problem is that he glosses over is the result of when we take action and that action is warranted. In his scenario, the result there is “yes, we still spend money, but we get a smiley face.” In reality, the economic result is identical regardless of whether it’s warranted or not. So the grid actually breaks down to be “if we choose column A, we get economic devastation no matter what. If we choose column B, then we either get total catastrophe or complete nirvana.” So essentially, if you go column A, you’re guaranteed the negative result, if you go column B, you have a chance for a much worse result, but also a chance for a much better result. That’s when knowing the probabilities becomes critical to decision-making.
I guess the sum point is that the “worst case scenario” argument can be a useful rhetorical tool, but as a logical argument, it’s far from flawless. But it all depends on who you’re trying to convince. As for me, I think the science is pretty darn concrete no-questions-asked that the probability of man-made climate change is close to 100%, so doing nothing about it really is not an option.
In related news, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yay!
He’s using worst case scenarios to simplify the argument and make a point as you say, but the assumption that taking action = economic catastrophe presumes that the current model we have right now is the pinnacle, the best, the ONLY way the world will work.
Nobel Peace Prize WINNAH Al Gore asserts that addressing global warming can be a money-making prospect for those willing to see it as an opportunity, and I think that’s right. Many of the messes we’re in right now are due to fear of change — not just global warming but so many other things. If we stop where we are and do everything we can to not change *at all,* then we are screwed no matter which column or row we’re in.
Exactly. The idea that taking action = (or is even likely to result in) economic devastation is flawed at best, and more probably just ludicrous. The interdependencies of cause and effect in being ecologically responsible mean that while you may make individual choices that are more costly than the unecological alternative when you look at them on side-by-side island, you’re far more likely to come out with a net gain overall. The worst case is more likely a slight inconvenience than a catastrophe.
To use an extremely simple example, but one I think is roughly analagous, bar owners in California screamed bloody murder when the state outlawed smoking in their establishments. They would lose bizillions in smokers’ business, etc…
When the ban came into effect, not only did the sky not fall, but their business got substantially better as non-smokers who had been staying away came in and bought drinks & food.
Peter and Jenna: I couldn’t agree with you more. We have been sold the “sky-is-falling” economic mentality from anti-environmental organizations for decades now, and yet, we have greatly improved our environmental standards (not enough, but vastly better than what they were) and the sky has yet to fall. The irony here is that anti-environmentalists frequently use this same argument (sky-is-falling yet is hasn’t) to combat new environmental regulations, when of course the reason the sky hasn’t fallen on that issue is because we did implement the old ones.
In terms of the video’s logic, however, if you assume that the economic collapse will happen if we implement controls and global warming is false (the scenario in Row 1 of Column A in the video), then there’s no reason to assume it won’t happen if we implement controls and global warming is true (Row 2, Column A). In other words, the truth or falsity of global climate change has nothing to do with the economic impact of environmental controls. This leaves you with one situation where a terrible result is possible (Column B) and one case where a less-terrible but still bad result is definite. Without knowing probabilities, this becomes a much more uncertain argument than is being presented. That’s why it is necessary to know probabilities, which are unaccounted for in the video.
Mary, just because one does not know the probabilities does not mean they do not exist. The logic of the argument fails because it does not take probabilities into account.
Without taking probabilities into account, the logic inevitably means whichever side can come up with the worse “worst-case” scenario–however improbable–wins.
I’ve presented the ice-age scenario if we take action against global warming. Since that trumps the global warming catastrophes, do you now agree that we should not take action against global warming? Of course not, because the logical framework is fallacious.
I’m not arguing the pros or cons of taking action. I’m merely pointing out that the method of argument is flawed.
Thank you Eric James Stone for succinct REASONing.
He admits up front that he is using a pretty basic logic game to do this, and he invites others to point out his flaws–so go point out his flaws to him!
However, his point is to try to get people to actually think about the situation and not just react based on their own predispositions. So what would be a better, equally straightforward way to do that? To disarm the kneejerks?
> He admits up front that he is using a pretty
> basic logic game to do this, and he invites
> others to point out his flaws–so go point out
> his flaws to him!
I tried, but comments have been disabled on the video.
*laughing*
Ah, well… good on you for trying!
Eric, I’m not sure what probabilities mean in this sort of situation.
In your original medical scenario (and I worked through several of these sorts of decision analyses during med school), the probability assigned to each row comes from empirical observations of hundreds or thousands of actual people. The costs and results of treatment choices are also empirical observations, or directly derived there from.
So in that sort of medical scenario, once you’ve multiplied everything out, the results mean “if we choose treatment A rather than treatment B, how many more/fewer people will be cured, how many more/fewer will die of the disease, how many more/fewer will die of side-effects of the treatment, and how much more/less will we spend?” These are population-based numbers, and serve well to guide public health policy.
In the climate-change example, as explicitly oversimplified here, the probability of each row being correct is either 1 or 0. What you’re calling “probability” here is instead an estimate of how certain we are that the row is correct. Such estimates are far from empirical (and in this case include a large dollop of political and sociological bias).
In fact, the climate-change example resembles not the public health model I described above, but rather that of an individual clinician faced with an individual patient (another situation I’ve experienced plenty of times). In some cases the clinician has been given clear public health guidelines to follow. E.g., Q: Should my patient with a sore throat be given antibiotics, or should she first be tested, and with which test? A: Follow the established guidelines developed by population-based decision analyses.
But in most cases such guidelines do not exist, and the clinician must instead think to himself, “What’s the worst possible diagnosis for this patient, and what would be the worst outcome of me acting or not acting accordingly?”
In the public health situations, if all clinicians follow the probability-based guidelines, then we know that each year we will cure X people of a serious illness at a cost of C, and put Y people through the various expenses of unnecessary treatment (one of these expenses being illness or death caused by the treatment).
(Yes — my decision whether to treat your everyday sore throat, with an everyday antibiotic, includes a calculation of the odds that you will, e.g., die due to whichever decision I make. And an acceptance [by me, anyhow] of that chance of you dying.)
But in most cases, where there are no applicable guidelines, the clinician ends up with something like: “If the worst-case diagnosis is correct, then my treatment has an excellent chance of saving this patient, at a reasonable expense. But my lack of treatment could cost the patient severely. On the other hand, if the worst-case diagnosis is not correct, then just watching for a few days will be entirely safe.” Followed by either: (a) “My best estimate is that the worst-case diagnosis is extremely unlikely here. So I should do nothing for now.” or (b) “The worst-case diagnosis has, in my best estimate, a not insignificant chance of being true. So I’d better treat (even though treatment has its own costs and risks).”
Hmm. Actually, there still is a population involved here: all of the patients that I will treat/not-treat in my career. So that business about “my best estimate” ends up meaning, “Of all the patients in my career that I have to decide whether or not to treat, what percentage will suffer due to my choosing incorrectly?” Yes — taking a health provider job with decision-making responsibilities requires one to accept a certain number of, e.g., patient deaths due to one’s incorrect (though not necessarily “mistaken”) decisions.
In the public health model, you multiply the probabilities of various outcomes by the incidence of the disease to calculate how many patients will live or die.
But in the clinical model for a rare disease, you can’t multiply probabilities and predict that 0.7 of your single patient will survive. You only get one chance here, and either 100% or 0% of your patients will die. So instead of multiplying probabilities you can only ask “How convinced am I that the diagnosis is incorrect?” Because if there’s any significant chance at all that the diagnosis might be correct, I have to treat.
So, should we prescribe “treatment” for climate change?
We can’t use the public health model — “Based on our previous experience with treating sick Earths, how many Earths will die or not die, at what expense, based on whether or not we apply this particular treatment to a thousand Earths with these particular symptoms?”
We can’t use the clinical model for a common disease — “How many of the Earths that I see in my career will die or survive, at what expense, based on how accurately I diagnose their conditions and pick appropriate treatment?”
We have something like the clinical model for an extremely rare, but extremely serious, disease — “I’m will see only one patient with these symptoms in my career. My decision today for this one patient will either be 100% right or 100% wrong. Unnecessary treatment has costs and risks. But if there is a not insignificant chance that the diagnosis is correct, then I must treat, because failure to do so will be catastrophic. So what’s my best educated guess as to whether the diagnosis might possibly be correct?”
[Apologies for ramblings and repetitions!]
Excellent link – thanks, Mary! I’ll be passing that on.
while I am advocate for working against climate change my biggest problem here, besides the serious on face close ups, is the assumption that all actions will equal a positive effect on climate change. We Humans are most capable of screwing things up more in an attempt to fix them.
With all the variables associated with global warming – depleted rain forests, rice paddy emmisions and methan from cattle included – We may not be such brillient intellects (as Heiko suggets) to easily ‘FIX’ the percieved problem by flattening the economy to third world levels. That would accomplish nothing.
Perhaps I haven’t been following the conversation very closely. Did someone suggest that?
Humans have a long track record of disastrous unintended ecological consequences when we either weren’t thinking, or weren’t thinking of the environment. But we have a pretty good track record of getting intended ecological results when we plan for them. My neighborhood in the Adirondacks is living proof of that. I don’t buy the hands in the air “it’s all too big and complicated” stance, or the idea that the solution is for us all to live in yurts. Although that would be pretty cool.
David: Thank you. That is very well said.
Momk: I’m living my life by trying to reduce my impact on the world. It has not affected me negatively. I’m unclear on how buying fair trade, organic products is damaging third world economies. You’ll have to explain that one to me.
Heiko: I think people can start making changes by reducing our impact on the planet, which, in my mind, is very different from introducing new technologies.
Peterbilt: What you said.
You buy fair trade, organic products too? Awesome. There are more and more resources for that kind of thing. I have a catalogue of them on my laptop here, for when I shop (I won’t buy anything but fairtrade and organic cotton). I’d send you it, but it’s mostly UK based.
Chris: start checking out bamboo too. It’s less of a water hog than cotton.
Am looking now – I used to have all bamboo socks and towels, but they wore out really quick. Now I just have organic cotton ones.
I go to American Apparel a bit, when they have organic (or ‘Sustainable Edition’) in stock, and I normally buy all my stuff from , which some guys who used to work at my company set up.
I think we may have talked about this in the bar at WFC last year, actually! I definitely had a conversation with someone about it!
Oops, sorry about my bad markup!