> Kurtz stated his *judgment* about the future and was willing to bet on > an (uncertain) outcome. (the probability of people doing worse on > average the more of us there are in future)
"The [sic!] coming cull" is not an uncertain outcome. It IS coming, otherwise you would have had to say "_a_ coming cull" or rather "_a_possible_ cull". Btw, I see on www.longbets.org that you didn't bet about a cull, but only that | Barring an unexpected decline in human numbers from current levels, | biodiversity will not reverse its downward trend, air and water pollution | will not reverse their increasing trends,(all according to World Resources | Institute data) and the WHO will not report a decrease in the percentage of | humans with persistent illnesses. ... until 2013. (This is trivial.) Why so shy in the limelight? Why didn't you bet that "Unless we're drastically reducing population down to ~100 Million, the coming cull will do it -- before 2100." ? Please put your money where your mouth is... > Reuss claims certain knowledge about reality, Are you saying that people are starving now in Europe, or that there have been wars in Switzerland in the last 150 years? If not, then how is the observed reality possible although we're all cave-men? > and states that he knows what is possible in future: Yes, it is possible -- but that doesn't mean it's certain. You talked of "THE COMING cull", but I never talked of "THE COMING removal of Predators from power", I just said it's a POSSIBILITY through progress. Do you want to deny that? That means you are CERTAIN that the probability is 0! ;-) Then you should put another bet to longbets.org, with this content. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
