For those unfamiliar with that dashing man, he is Blaise Pascal. Aside from his many contribution to philosophy, mathematics, etc, he is probably best known for Pascal's Wager.
Pascal's wager is simply an application of Expectation Decision Theory for those of you familiar with economics/probability. It's a very simple theory. Essentially, when computing the potential return of almost any decision, you simply need to take into account two things: a) the probability of the various outcomes and b) their payoff.
This translates into an equation where P(x) is the probability of outcome x, and R(x) is the return of outcome x as such:
Expected return = (P(x1) * R(x1))+(P(x2)*R(x2))+(P(xn)*R(xn))
Pascal, not only one of the first to really use and understand decision theory, but also maybe the first to insert infinity into the mix. Essentially, if the return of any one of your outcomes is infinitely large (or close to it), then the probability of that option is irrelevant, as anything times infinity is essentially infinity. So basically the decision ends up being a no brainer.
Pascal's infinite was the alpha and omega, g-d. Essentially, Pascal's Wager can be broken down as follows. If g-d does exist, he is clearly the infinite. So regardless of the rational probability of his existence, from an expected decision standpoint, we should adhere to religion as its reward/punishment is so grave.
In other words, if g-d exists, and you follow him, HEAVEN. If not, HELL (not necessarily fire and brimstone, but some eternal negative). Those are pretty eternally good/bad, and therefore it probably makes sense, regardless of the probability of g-d's rational existence, to go with it. Pascal took it as far as to say that if g-d doesn't exist, and you abide by religion, you lose nothing, so it's a win win. I'm sure no one would agree with that today as a life predicated on religion is quite different than one without.
I am not writing to defend this theory, and obviously like any other theory, it has been criticized sufficiently since its inception. Yet, it is a great paradigm for the problem of global warming. A problem that if what they say is true (or even kind of true), has eternal implications, at least for us humans. Maybe g-d (if you believe in him), can wait millions of years for the minute probability of life forming again, but for most of us, that's an infinite amount of time. So essentially, the outcome of global warming, if it's true, is the end of life and earth as we know it. Sounds pretty damn infinite.
As we've established, when we're dealing with an infinite outcome, the probability is irrelevant. Maybe the scientists are 50% right, maybe their 10% right, and maybe when they say 20 years they mean 50. Who cares?!?!?!?! We are talking about the end, kaput, finale. It's an idea that's hard to comprehend. We humans are wired to assume that tomorrow will pretty much be like yesterday. It's quite hard for us to imagine, and alas except, anything different. This may be the only area where all humans are skeptics.
So to use the decision theory approach once again, let's assume global warming is true. If we take all the necessary steps to fight it, HEAVEN ON EARTH (literally). If not, THE END. So we should probably fight it. But what if it really is all a big sham, or not a big sham but largely scientifically inaccurate? Here is where our equation differs from Pascal's. He claimed that if g-d does not exist, and we believe, we lose nothing. I think most people disagree. Yet, with global warming, that just might be true. Even if global warming is false, or simply a bit exaggerated, are the steps that we are going to take so bad.
Is clean air bad? Conservation? Environmentally Responsibility? An end to McMansions and SUV's? An end to our oil dependency that skews our national politics and our wallets? Sustainability? A little respect for Nature? Innovation of hundred year old industries? Sustainable energy policy? The list goes on. Sure a few big wig oil executives and some other people with a vested interest (and quite deep pockets) in the status quo will fund lots of studies and spend lots of ad dollars to try and dissuade us. It's pretty sad to think that some people value another summer house or nice car over the human race.
It seems that the debate is over. Who cares if global warming is true or not. Regardless, the benefits of fighting it are both socially and economically positive in the long run. If it ends up being nothing more than something that motivated us, America, to get off our lazy (but nicely cushioned) behinds and finally see a tomorrow that's not like yesterday, it really is Pascal's win win.
