Climate Change is the big issue. It's complex, scientific, economic and emotive, and involves everyone on the planet. There are evangelists and sceptics. The predictions they make are uncertain and probabilistic. So, if we had Interactive Democracy could the average person be trusted to decide on what is the best thing to do?
What I find inspiring by this debate is that leadership doesn't just come from those that have already decided what is the best course of action (or inaction), it also comes from teachers that show how to decide in an uncertain situation. This video by Greg Craven (with 4.25 million hits) is a great example. He shows a system of how to weight the odds (which you may use to come to your own, opposite conclusion).
Tuesday, 1 February 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hmmm ... very questionable logic used. It works on a very small scale if can accurately assess the risks.
In religious evangelism this is called "Pascals Wager" ... i.e. you have everything to gain but nothing to lose.
Using the 'logic' of this video, as long as you can dream up scenarios where the (unproven and unprovable) risks are severe enough then you should always act no matter what the known costs/consequences.
Provides fuel for every weird conspiracy theory in the world.
It does have consequences for Direct Democracy because - as an advocate for it - it does worry me how gullible people can be.
Thanks for your comment Rebel Saint. I hope debating makes us less gullible; I hope direct democracy is a type of educational process.
Post a Comment