Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I'm not sure I can agree with "inadequate". I think the poker metaphor provides a perfectly good, intuitively usable framework for assessing the personal risks from environmental degradation/climate change.

The first hard part is encouraging people to approach the issue in that way.

The second hard part will be to transition from a multiplicity of personal insights to collective action.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 06:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I suppose whether a metaphor is compelling is in teh eye of the beholder. I don't feel compelled. Maybe I'm in the minority here.

I can imagine better metaphors for environmental degradation than gambling. Such as: eating the seed corn, pissing in your own soup.

The more you look into the gambling metaphor the shakier it gets. What's the analogue of card-counting? Where are the mathematically precise odds? Where is the bluffing? Is it a zero-sum game? Even the quoted text starts by distinguishing odds from stakes and then mixes them up. And the resort to gambler's ruin (odds of something ever happening) is self-defeating as it invites my observation that ruin is certain (Kolmogorov's zero-one law) which reduces the whole exercise to absurdity. This is related to Cheney's infamous one-percent rule

If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis ... It's about our response.
(Hat tip to someone)

I don't see the betting parlour in environmental/energy policy (or lack thereof). The only betting parlour in sight is the financial markets, and there the gambling metaphor is apt, the more you look into it the better it gets, and the final conclusion must be

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes


Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 07:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I can imagine better metaphors for environmental degradation than gambling. Such as: eating the seed corn, pissing in your own soup.

yes, I agree, they are better -- and I've used them (and variants thereon) also...  but they don't seem to work either, as far as making any dent in the general complacency of the "average" (average that is, among the rarefied social stratum of the semi-educated and respectably affluent classes of N Am)...  "somehow" Science (I refer here to the popularised fetish rather than the serious activity of increasing understanding of ourselves and our world) will synthesise corn from sand, or immunise us against all the consequences of contaminating our food supply...  oh yeah, and we'll run our cars on peanut butter.  "scientists will figure something out," or at least that is what most people I talk to seem to believe.  it's what they say anyway;  perhaps it's just whistling past the graveyard?

sometimes I suspect that metaphors like soup and seed corn are automatically devalued in the cognition of a generation raised from birth to model everything in life as a machine or a market or a casino divorced from biotic realities.  as if a concern with food, agriculture, or any related issues were somehow declasse, infra dig, not worth engaging with...?

interestingly, several of the actual scientists I talk to think that we are very nearly at (within a generation of) "game over, reset";  one of my favourite astronomers (the Marcy of Marcy/Butler the planet-hunting team, if I may presume to drop a name) said rather sadly to me a couple of weeks ago that it seems a shame -- Terra might very well be the only planet in this galaxy, if not in this universe, to develop the astonishing complexity of life (a colossal fluke, in other words, a weird little pocket of local counter-entropic activity); and yet we seem determined to reduce our ecosystem back to the salad days of slime-molds and protists, and put ourselves (the top predator du jour) out of business for good.  as an astronomer, he said, obviously he takes a long and artificially detached view;  it's a big universe, does it really matter if we blow ourselves up or poison ourselves or veneriform Terra?  but it does seem as if we ought to try to preserve things like the astonishing variety of our music, speech, art, agriculture, etc.   the odds are that nowhere else out there can be found a gamelan ensemble or gregorian chant or chinese opera (or the chicago symphony for that matter, or a really good plate of fresh favas and pasta), ought to make our life here so precious that we wouldn't gamble the farm on grandiose anti-reality fantasies with quite such suicidal enthusiasm.  

seems like we keep wanting to prove -- from our Sky-Father religions to our more recent cyborg dreams -- that we are something somehow better and higher, cleaner and purer, more powerful and aetherial and marvelous than mere organisms;  that we can divorce ourselves from the "splendor and travail" [H Beston] of biotic life, which we call "messy" and "dirty" and "icky" (when we aren't calling it "sissy")... all the while remaining wilfully oblivious to how amazingly complex, rare, fascinating, improbable and wondrous it is for us to be what we are:  a living organism on a planet (that may well be) uniquely wealthy in this gorgeous fluke of living organisms woven into complex, entangled systems.  one bright ball of exuberant life in a very big and eerily quiet galaxy...  hey, we already won the lottery.

but returning to the original topic for a mo:  the importance of stakes as well as odds is I think relevant to all discussions of risk/benefit, even if poker isn't the most scintillating metaphor.  the magnitude of the potential downside is relevant;  if there is a 1/1000 chance that the person standing next to me w/a steaming mug will spill coffee on my best shirt, that is not something I'm gonna worry about too much, but if there is a 1/1000 chance that the person pointing a loaded gun at me might sneeze and accidentally pull the trigger, that's far more worrying.  same odds, higher stakes...  very different situation.

similarly the argument that the Universe is doomed to entropic rundown, or that we are all mortal anyway, doesn't really vitiate my anxiety about the 1/1000 chance of having my head blown off before my time, or -- particularly -- willynilly by the malice or carelessness of another person, rather than by my own agency :-)

that last part is relevant too.  the other aspect almost always left out of CoBA is "for  whom," i.e., who's making the decision to take the risk, vs who's actually most exposed to the risk, and who's reaping the potential reward?

the "impeccable" logic [thank you, Larry, for that deathless quote] of dumping US industrial waste on the third world, or situating refineries, airports, chem plants and other toxic and dangerous facilities in lower-income neighbourhoods, are perfect examples of "benefits for me, risks for you, the math looks good to me."  but one basic principle of democracy, or anything resembling democracy, is that people get to make their own decisions about what risks they want to take;  conversely they don't get to inflict, for their own benefit, risks on others that have not been consented to.  the more collective our risk-taking is, the higher the stakes get, the more we need consensus rather than authoritarianism if we're to make any ethical justification for the risk.  and at this point, the big risks we are taking are global.

climate change mitigation is another good example of "your cost my bennies" CoBA:  the nations that have least benefitted from the fossil binge and have least contributed to the problem (the equatorial, subtropical and polar environments) are the hardest hit by the costs.  meanwhile the biggest offender nations -- the League of Fossil Flatulence -- sit around debating in a leisurely fashion whether it is "cost effective" to address the problem...  since their own catastrophes may be arriving next week or next year rather than today or tomorrow.

but looking at recent news from the UK, maybe it's sooner than next week or next year that the headwaiter will be back with the bill for that long, reckless fossil pig-out...  yikes.

sorry, this is a bit rambling...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Wed Jul 25th, 2007 at 04:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
interestingly, several of the actual scientists I talk to think that we are very nearly at (within a generation of) "game over, reset";

Well, the most infuriating thing abut this whole mess is that there is a scientific consensus that we're in the middle of a disaster, but the business and political class don't want to hear about it. And given the choice between cornucopianism and frugality, people choose cornucopianism.

In human terms we've been there before: Europe's 14th century. In cultural and ecological terms, we haven't.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 03:18:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and yet I still hear "ordinary" folks talking about the Oregon Petition as proof that there is no consensus.

there seems to be a vague correlation between rightwing politics and climate change denial, and aside from the obvious alignment (capitalism ueber alles, money-worship) I wonder if there are not deeper structural reasons for this.  worth thinking about... it is possible that a decade of nonstop disasters could finally discredit the liberal and neoliberal economic model for good-n-all.  but oh gods, at what a price...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 02:12:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If a narrative that attributes global climate change to traditional economics is not vigorously pushed before the disaster, it won't make a difference.

What is the Oregon Petition?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 03:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh I thought everyone knew about the Oregon Petition, sorry.  A fine upstanding example of astroturf in action.  You will find many an ordinary USian saying, "But wasn't there this petition that 19,000 scientists signed saying they didn't believe global warming was caused by humans?"  Thanks for the wikipedia link.

Here is a British site that references it as well.

Here's how good old Faux News used it on-air... along with a quick rundown on the petition's funders and creators:

Also circulated with the petition was a letter from Frederick Seitz, a former NAS president, that warned that "[t]he United States is very close to adopting" the Kyoto Protocol, which, according to Seitz, "would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds." Seitz added that "there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful." A June 5, 2000, item in Business Week reported that "[f]or 28 years, Seitz was also a paid director and shareholder of Ogden Corp., an operator of coal-burning power plants that stands to lose financially should the Kyoto Protocol become law." Business Week reported that Seitz "sold most of his 11,500 shares" of Ogden in 1999 -- after promoting the petition in 1998.

An article in the May 2006 edition of Vanity Fair by Mark Hertsgaard reported, in Hertsgaard's words, "in full for the first time," the real "overlap" -- exemplified by Seitz -- between "the people who deny the dangers of climate change" and the "tobacco executives who denied the dangers of smoking." Hertsgaard reported that after leaving the NAS, Seitz "helped R. J. Reynolds Industries, Inc., give away [$45 million] to fund medical research in the 1970s and 1980s," which "avoided the central health issue" of smoking and "served the tobacco industry's purposes," but that "as proof of its commitment to science," "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program." The article further reported that, in a paper he authored in the 1990s, Seitz "asserted that secondhand smoke posed no real health risks." The article added that Seitz is "chairman emeritus" of the George C. Marshall Institute, which is one of "an array of organizations" funded by ExxonMobil "to downplay the problem" of global warming.

Monbiot recently was interviewed  on, among other things, this convergence between the Big Tobacco lobby and the Big Fossil lobby -- perhaps between them they should found the Anti-Lung Association?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 07:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]
meta4's....

how's about, setting fire to your favourite supermarket?

castrating yourself in a priapic spasm?

laying mines in your bathroom?

breeding black mambas in your bedroom?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:43:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ramble on, per-leeze...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Thu Jul 26th, 2007 at 12:49:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series