[extropy-chat] Re: peak oil debate framed from a game theorystandpoint ?

[Hal Finney]

Spike asks:

> Here's an ethical question for you guys.  Suppose I am a skeptic regarding
> the sillier stuff we hear about global warming: that it was the cause
> of the snowstorms in Los Angeles this past winter, that it makes more
> and bigger hurricanes, that it causes the genitals of the children of
> outer Mongolia to mature at the age of four, whatever.
>
> Suppose I am in a position to make money off of that hype.  Would that
> be unethical?  If I don't actually *contribute* to the silliness, but
> rather take advantage of that which is already out there, entirely thru
> free market reaction.  Do you see anything wrong with that?

I think the main ethical question would be whether your actions cause
harm, from your perspective.  If you don't agree with this theory about
global warming, yet you are, say, selling products that tie into the
theory somehow, then your actions would arguably increase belief in what
you view as a false idea.  So I think that would be ethically wrong.

If your product or service, on the other hand, somehow would show or
demonstrate to people the falsehood of their beliefs, then your actions
would be more likely to be ethical.

Suppose your product were useless.  Suppose it was a ghost repellant and
you sold it to people who foolishly believe in ghosts.  Then you might
argue that you are implicitly punishing a false belief and indirectly
rewarding people who believe correctly.  However I would say that you
are doing harm to people who already suffer from their false beliefs,
without really doing anything to lead them to the truth.  So this would
in my opinion be unethical.

Do you have a specific idea in mind to make money off global warming
hype?

Hal