Ok, I know the title might be confusing to one or two people, maybe even more than two. But, the point I'm trying to make is not really that confusing, at least not to me. The way this works in my mind is really simple: I understand how "Pascal's Wager" is used in apologetics, I do. But, why does it stop there? Meaning, why can we not use this logic on other things of pressing importance. Are you confused? Let me explain.

img src

Urghh.. Politics

Yes, I get too, I despise it as well. We know that the conversation regarding climate change has been made into a political espectable for the clowns at the circus. In plenty of political arenas the demonization of the opposition through the dichotomy is one that has not allowed us to be pragmatic about evidence and certainly not about legislation.

However, What does that have to do with the constituency? Meaning that if two Senators are fighting for the podium of virtue signaling because that's all the effectively know about politics, How does that negate the observations being made, the actions we the people should take?

That's my only point. Yes, I get it, the carbon tax is impeding business. Yes, I understand some of the regulations are just there for governmental power grabs. But again, How does that make the conversation no worth having?

Strawman moment... please forgive yours truly...

Person 1.- "Listen... I don't want to talk about my leaky roof, because what's happening here is that the city is trying to fine me for having an ugly house. Its their way of taking more money from me and I simply won't have it. It's my right"

Person 2.- "Yes of course, you make sense, but... the roof is still leaking..."

Person 1.- "I don't know, I think they invented leaking so they could tax us more"

Person 2.- "But, you've lost all your furniture to water damage"

Person 1.-"I don't know about all that, people lose furniture all the time, they are not meant to last forever you know"

Person 2.- "Nobody is saying it should last forever, but three couches in a year is not normal"

Person1.- "Furniture quality is changing, it's all outsourced now, how do you know it's not normal?"

What's the risk?

I guess that's the only point I'm trying to make. Let's assume for a moment that all the climate research is wrong, that everything about the CO2 levels is inaccurate and that it's all a scam, a scam for governments to make more money. Let's assume all that.

What happens then? - Are we not still helping the planet a little bit? Even if it's a fraction of the help it needs. Are we not polluting less?

I remember a friend telling me how a volcano pollutes the air more than a city, and how my argument made no sense. To me, it sounded as if he was saying that we have millions of volcanoes constantly erupting. So yes, he did have a point, but we were comparing apples to oranges.

Maybe I'm idealistic

Maybe that's my problem. Because to me this, this little conversation is the one were I would like to evoke Pascal's wagers. If we are wrong, if the planet is doing just fine, us doing a better job taking care of it is not a bad thing.