[FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Global Warming

[David Breecker]

Kant's Categorical Imperative is the only (I think) answer:   http:// 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain  
action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would  
compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my  
thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative would  
denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its  
authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end  
in itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act only  
according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it  
should become a universal law." [1]

db

On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> All,
>
> The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so  
> far in
> this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us  
> relatively
> little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.
>
> Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right?
>
> I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism.  If a  
> goddamned
> butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for  
> ANYTHING
> we do.  We should all be dionysians.

dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070813/86ee8ba4/attachment.html