[Paleopsych] energy problems
Werbos, Dr. Paul J.
paul.werbos at verizon.net
Mon Aug 9 18:47:21 UTC 2004
At 09:17 AM 8/9/2004 -0700, Steve wrote:
>So you don't seem to be a pessimist about
>actually doing this...
>However, a Vice President who says "conservation
>is not an option" and President who is owned by
>the oil companies won't lead us where we need
>I recently saw a British Petroleum ad which asserts
>that the oil companies will have to lead us into the
>future of energy. Probably not.
Lotfi Zadeh once asked whether Bayesian Utilitarianism was basically
just part of my religion. In a way, yes. Respects to Howard Raiffa and John
In that viewpoint -- we are not really called to act if things are
guaranteed to go well,
or guaranteed to go badly. But if we say there is some probability of
zero and one, then a rational person will try to tweak the probabilities as
best he/she can
in the right direction.
So -- I am not exactly an optimist, and not exactly a pessimist -- but not
I do think we have good, rational bases for fear here. Here today we look at
the pain, the cost and the risk caused by the combination of Osama's groups,
of Iraq, of Arab-Israeli tension, of instability in Saudi Arabia, and so on...
all very costly already, and worthy of high-level attention. And then I wonder:
Now that Ismail has shown us it could be ten times as bad in 20 years, or
why are we sitting here paralyzed like a deep in the headlights? Maybe we
be road kill after all, but if enough of us brain cells start twitching
there is always some hope
of waking up...
I see it less as a problem of partisan politics and more of a problem in
But yes, certainly, there are a few folks in the partisan politics (in both
or exploiting the parties) who seem to specialize in sleeping pills or
BP is not the most evil company in the world... maybe a key part of waking
up is for
many parties to learn better how to work with each other, and bypass the
of hired guns. But, yes, the guns are there.
More information about the paleopsych