I agree this crosses a line to silly. But it seems to this amateur observer that the plausible realities - 1 or 2 sd’s from the mean - are vast. Eg, Ocean acidification’ effects on marine life.https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/1099268159482286080 …
Ocean acidification is a problem, but likely not anywhere close to catastrophic — only study to estimate total impact suggests lost GDP impact of 0.01-0.09% by 2100 http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161105 …
-
-
Bjorn, don't you go confusing them with facts! Really enjoyed your podcast with Jordan Peterson btw
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
“Most likely” wasn’t my point. Acidification setting off massive ecological changes might be, say, a 10% likelihood but could be a huge deal. It’s not just mean risk but distribution of risks.
-
Sure, and fair point But small risk of large-scale impacts for almost all policies, if you allow them to go on for 80+ years. (Say, any policy that just marginally increases prob of state breakdown/lawlessness + better access to crispr/bioterrorism⇒catastrophe)
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Economists are well known for being able to make accurate forecasts.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.