In my opinion Greg's logic simplifies and adjusts people's ways of thinking. All of a sudden one of the most complicated issue have been divided on two 4 possible out comes. He deeply believes that not choosing the 'B' column would be the most realistic decision to eventually achieve to minimize Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health futuristic catastrophes, whereas choosing column 'A' would cause only 'cost global depression', if global warming does really exist of course.
On the other side I tend to believe that just like trying to minimize the chance of a great loss, why not increase the chance of a great win? Since there is a chance of 50%, loads of money could be spent on education, support people who suffer from starvation, decrease taxes, increase awareness of health issues, support innovation and other beneficial ways to achieve a better world and again there is 50% chance! The problem is that it is mostly human nature to 'play it safe', human in their nature (not all of course) do not like to take risks, and by taking risks of crazy unbelievable ideas we have reached great technology, and development of amazing concepts that did not seem possible because in order to actually benefit eventually risks got to be taken.
Another point I would like to point out is that the worse case scenario in column 'A' is not as better as we think than the one in column 'B'. Stating that if money is spent to prevent global morning but it does not actually exist, there would be a 'cost depression' but if we really think about it all these Economical, Social, Political, Environmental and Health subjects rely on MONEY. So if money would be lost it could affect the exact same topics that were mentioned in column 'B'. Running an hospital, a business, managing political issues around the world, living up in social places they all rely on money therefore there would be not a much of a great differences between the two losses where all the subjects I have just mentioned would be affected harshly which brings us back to the thought why not try to play it big and maybe benefit more for our future.
Using Greg Craven's logic:
Assuming there is an error alert in all public shopping places in Uganda, but there is nothing to eat in my house, what could be the possible outcomes?
|
Not going to shop
|
Going to Shop
|
Terror alert in Uganda
|
|
Saving your life, but staying hungry. :)
|
Great chance of getting captured to 'uncomfortable'
situation. :(
|
Terrorism takes place
|
|
Staying at home and hungry :(
|
Finally eating a good burger! :)
|
Terrorism not taking place.
|
