Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

What choice do we have? It takes 10 years of specific education or so to be able to make an informed decision about global warming. I broke my leg and took the advice of the orthopedic surgeon although I didn't like it. I sure could not have overuled the surgeon with my knowledge. It depends on the situation obviously; the less information one needs to make an informed decison the more people can be involved; the ease with which the decision can be reversed also has to be factored in. Your former colleague is on very thin ice deciding happiness for others.

Actually genetics in Russia would have been a lot better off listening to the top 200 geneticists in the republics than the views of the political favorite, Lysenko. Indeed one can make the case that poor science dominated by the political system contributed significantly to the collapse of the USSR. Genetics policy was anything but a scientific concensus in the Soviet Union.

>>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 1:10 PM >>>
*So who am I to tell them I think they are wrong. Why should anybody
besides top atmospheric scientists be able to claim they are wrong? Who
decides they are wrong, and on what basis? Is it really a good idea to let
voters decide between someone who says they accept this view and somebody
who says they don't accept this?*

This is the sort of thinking that scares me. Should we accept a benevolent
dictatorship of scientific experts? How far should this principle extend?
For example, a former colleague of mine on a law faculty wrote a paper about
"affective forecasting" -- the well established consensus notion in the
social psychology literature that people are bad at predicting which course
of action will make them happy. His suggestion was that, based on these
scientific results, rational people should be willing to delegate much of
their life plans to experts. From my perspective, broad central planning
based on scientific consensus has been tried in places like China and the
former Soviet Union, and it has always turned out badly.

On 1/19/07, Al Koop <koopa@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 8:23 AM >>>
>
> The problem is, the ecologists can only tell us so much, and we need
> insight
> from economists and other social scientists if we want to make wise policy
> choices. I think this is my biggest concern about the public debate right
> now. Anyone who questions the sort of radical action that Gore & co.
> propose is labeled as anti-science. It is not anti-science, however, to
> insist on sound economic and social models before signing on to a radical
> policy agenda. It's pro-science, or better, simple prudence.
>
>
> AK:
> This is my last post on this matter. The ecologists (and other scientists
> in other cases) indeed can tell us only so much, but I insist that they can
> be highly confident that they can set some limits and what they tell us
> about such limits cannot be ignored by economists or anybody else. No
> biological organisms will grow if one of the essential nutrients is
> exhausted from the environment or if waste builds up to toxic
> levels--period. In my opinion, any economic model is worthless that suggests
> that organisms can grow and exceed the limits set by nature. In other
> words, I am confident that science trumps economics. If economists respect
> those limits, then they can tell us a lot, but too often they insist those
> limits simply don't exist.
>
> But science is not so robust that on complex issues it can tell us
> precisely what these limits are and when we are nearing them or when we have
> reached them. The problem is that when reasonable knowledgeable people
> think we are approaching these limits it is not easy to convince the general
> public that this is the case. In fact, if you are politically savvy, you
> know the public does not like to hear bad news, and if you haven't hit any
> limits yet it is pretty easy to convince the public that there is no limit
> in sight.rels of
> oil a day. The economists tell us that we will require 120 million barrels
> by 2025 and lots more by 2050 if the world economy is to remain on track. I
> am confident that the 1-2% growth that we have been experiencing in oil
> supply over the last 100 years simply will not continue for another 50
> years. The response of most is: "How do you know? It hasn't happened
> yet. Those scientists a!
> re so smart they will figure out a way so we will have enough energy for
> our cars." [ It is amazing that the general public finds it easy to believe
> that scientists are so smart they can come up with all sorts of advances to
> make life better, but when they suggest that there are problems looming on
> the horizon the scientists suddenly become bumbling idiots.] It isn't easy
> getting elected telling the public you will vote to spend money today for a
> future problem that they cannot see that requires them to believe some
> scientific projections about limits. All the opposing politician has to do
> is point out previous alarms that were sounded that turned out to be
> wrong. Certain oil people projected in the past 10 years that we should
> have already reached the limit of oil supply, but we haven't. This is good
> enough evidence for many (probably a significant majority I would say) that
> we don't have to be concerned about limits to our energy supply. Likewise,
> I see the s!
> ame thing happening for global warming—reasonable knowledgea!
> ble peop
> le largely agree that humans are messing up the atmosphere and there are
> likely to be dire consequences for future generations unless we take some
> steps that cost us significantly in some way today. But people don't want
> to take these steps unless they are sure they are needed, and there are
> plenty of people that tell them these steps are unnecessary. Since the
> global warming effects will creep upon us slowly, if they do indeed happen,
> widespread support for mitigating global warming effects won't materialize
> until too late, unless leaders have enough confidence in today's scientific
> projections to act on it. I predict we will do little to restrict
> greenhouse gas emissions and future gations will get to experience the
> results.
>
> Now referring to Randy Issacs recent post, which I generally agree with,
> almost all knowledgeable atmospheric scientists agree that global warming is
> the result of human influence. So who am I to tell them I think they are
> wrong. Why should anybody besides top atmospheric scientists be able to
> claim they are wrong? Who decides they are wrong, and on what basis? Is it
> really a good idea to let voters decide between someone who says they accept
> this view and somebody who says they don't accept this? What will the
> effects of this global warming be? This will have to be determined by the
> geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, climatologists, etc. Who are the
> general public to tell them they are wrong? Getting back to your original
> question, David, we can indeed let the sociologists and economists give us
> guidance about whether the public would like to see Florida under water in a
> 100 years or whether they would they rather
> take expensive steps to prevent this today. But what the public really
> wants to believe is that they don't have to make that choice; what they
> would really want to hear is that there is no global warming problem, or at
> least none that we could prevent. Of course, no one wants to spend any
> money to reduce carbon emissions if they are harmless. Of course no one
> wants to spend enormous amounts of money to reduce carbon emissions if it
> won't put a dent in global warming. But aren't these the questions that
> science will have to answer? Isn't that where we are stuck?
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

-- 
David W. Opderbeck
Web:  http://www.davidopderbeck.com
Blogmyspace.com/davidbecke
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.