It's evidently a sign the whole thing is unimportant that people indulge
in the luxury of abstract debate for making their decisions.   If it
were perceived as real, wouldn't we make decisions the normal way?
 

Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>     

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Breecker
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 6:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Pascal's Wager and Global Warming


Kant's Categorical Imperative is the only (I think) answer:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain
action (or inaction) to be
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_possibility> necessary. A
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative> hypothetical
imperative would compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to
satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative
would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its
authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in
itself. It is best known in its first formulation: "Act only according
to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#_note-Ellington>
[1]

db

On Aug 13, 2007, at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:


All, 




The best argument for worrying about global warming presented so far in

this interesting correspondence is the one that says it costs us
relatively

little to worry about it and and costs us LOT if we dont.  




Sort of like Pascal's argument for prayer, right? 




I do worry about complexity thinking leading to fatalism.  If a
goddamned

butterfly can cause a climate crash, why take responsibility for
ANYTHING

we do.  We should all be dionysians.  



dba | David Breecker Associates, Inc.
Santa Fe: 505-690-2335
Abiquiu:   505-685-4891
www.BreeckerAssociates.com




============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Reply via email to