simonshen patreon

【國際關係深度評 🌍】 Facts 不同 Truth：為甚麼未來世界會越來越不信任科學？

🕑 Added 2024-12-10 01:01:01 +0000 UTC

Comments

lyk

This is about economics, not the state of the biosphere. Air cost you nothing in 1980 and still cost you nothing now.

堅離地書院 College

這值得分享 🙏

pp lam

無下一代就係最環保，政府應該分返啲環保費俾我

Gary Lee

翻譯上，Facts 係事實，Truth 係真理，都有分別吧

lyk

I don’t think the outcome of pari-mutuel betting system is necessarily unscientific. People don’t believe in bloodletting anymore than they did a century ago if we look over a longer stretch — society often takes two steps forward, one step back, but there is progress. If Mr Musk makes the blind see again, that is progress, but believing everything he says is gospel is not. Science is a harder sell when the outcome is long range — similar to buying mortgage or life insurance, you won’t know the payoff until years later, but eventually they come around. Having leadership that people respect will help as everything reverberates down from the top, that is one reason I believe electing leaders with integrity issues will have deeper flow-on consequences in society beyond policy calculations — even people who believe that Mr Trump’s policy choices will make their life better will not entrust him to babysit their kid for a week. After years of wretched excess, the population balance of hawks and doves has shifted. That will swing again, but in life all good things take time.

George

This piece brings the Simon-Ehrlich wager to mind, which was the bet between economist Julian Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich in 1980 regarding the future availability and prices of natural resources. Simon and Ehrlich made a bet based on their differing views on resource scarcity and population growth. Ehrlich, known for his book “The Population Bomb,” predicted that the prices of five selected metals (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) would increase over the next decade due to resource scarcity. Simon, on the other hand, believed that human innovation and market forces would lead to greater abundance and lower prices for these resources over time. The bet was structured such that Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference in the prices of the selected metals ten years later, based on inflation-adjusted prices. If the prices of the metals went up, Simon would pay Ehrlich. In 1990, at the end of the wager period, the prices of all five metals selected by Ehrlich had decreased significantly. Ehrlich lost the bet and paid Simon an amount based on the difference in prices. This outcome supported Simon's argument that human innovation, technological advancements, and market mechanisms can lead to increased resource availability and lower prices over time. This wager is often cited in discussions about resource scarcity, the role of technology and innovation in resource management, and the limits to growth theories. It highlighted the importance of considering human ingenuity and market dynamics in addressing challenges related to resource availability and environmental issues. In today's interconnected and technology-driven financial landscape, markets across different asset classes are more volatile and highly correlated. In addition, trading is increasingly influenced by machine-learning algorithms, making the outcome of a bet similar to the Simon-Ehrlich wager even more unpredictable and extending well beyond the scope of the original argument. The intricate interplay of global factors, rapid information dissemination, and algorithmic trading mechanisms could introduce additional layers of complexity to such a bet. Factors such as high-frequency trading, algorithmic biases, and the speed of market reactions to news and events could significantly impact the prices of resources or assets in question. Therefore, making a similar bet in this day and age would likely involve a more nuanced understanding of market dynamics and technological influences, underscoring the evolving nature of resource pricing and the challenges of forecasting in a technologically advanced financial environment.