|
|
|
|
|
by guscost
2284 days ago
|
|
Surely you must see that now we're having a moral/ethical/political/religious argument, very far removed from anything resembling science? This is exactly my point. You may believe that you have identified all of "the real nonsense" perfectly well, and your suggestions might be better or worse than mine. But good luck becoming any more certain than you are right now, or proving your case to anyone else. Put another way: If you believe that X is a "serious enough" risk and I do not, but I believe that Y is a "serious enough" risk and you do not, how do we resolve that disagreement? Who gets the money? |
|
Worst possible outcome for overreacting could be severe economic hardship and domestic unrest.
Worst possible outcome for under-reacting could be millions dead, leading to severe economic hardship and domestic unrest.
If the evidence isn't beyond all doubt I would hope the choice is clear which worst outcome is worth paying to avoid.
EDIT: "paying to avoid" not "paying for"