Scenario 1. If you were attending a dinner conference tonight with 100 seats and I told you that 1 of the 100 servings would be poisoned with deadly cyanide, would you eat?
Scenario 2. If I told you there was a 1 in 100 probability that the bus you ride to work would be bombed, would you ride it?
Scenario 3. If I told you there was a 1 in 100 probability that North Korea was selling nuclear suitcase bombs to terrorists, would you invade North Korea?
Notice how the successive risks become less clear, although the probabilities remain constant. Also, notice how risk can be mitigated in scenario 1 & 2 by simple avoidance, whereas scenario 3 requires active preventative engagement.
Also, the scenario outcomes differ. In scenario 1, there’s a 100% chance someone will die (assuming full attendance). In scenario 2 & 3, there’s a 99% chance that nobody will die. In scenario 2, your personal lifestyle is directly impacted but the risk is easy to mitigate. In scenario 3, it is unclear who will be affected…but there’s a 1% risk that tens of thousands of innocent people somewhere, sometime will die.
If the government was aware of risks 1 and 2, they’d be expected to take immediate preventative action. But do we, as a society, have the moral authority to take preventative action on a threat that is less clear but more significant (i.e. scenario 3)?
Peak oil and climate change are two examples of unclear yet big risks facing the world. Both are large enough threats to recognize, yet the probabilities are highly unclear. Nobody has the willpower to tackle problems that aren’t yet tangible. This is a major reason why nothing is being done about peak oil.
