Costs cannot be wished away. The U.N. is ignoring the economics of climate, writes @BjornLomborg https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-n-ignores-economics-of-climate-1539125496 …
-
His conclusion only makes sense if the probability is zero for the path that destroys the planet. That is an extremely arrogant assumption in a complex system where ultimately the tail risk is wild (no meaningful statistics modes exist)...
Bad arg: If you worry about possibly catastrophic outcomes, you have to spend all your $ on *all* the many catastrophic areas, which is both impossible and also not how we act: Astroids could kill us all, but we currently spend $4bn on detecting only 90% https://academic.oup.com/reep/article-abstract/5/2/240/1564675?redirectedFrom=fulltext …pic.twitter.com/EmudUNg9z7
-
-
Comparing the event of a large asteroid collision (d=5km) which happens every 20 millions years with the probability of one path leading to the planet’s destruction caused by humans (potential event within next 200 years at current speed) makes no sense...
-
I would argue survival is related to deal with tail risks. Children learn this very early in life. Intelligence is about maximising future choice. If you don’t avoid existential risk it’s game over - ask Lehman Brothers and short volatility funds in February :-)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.