Menu
Good question! The answer is … yes, with a twist. Pascal’s Wager is a 17th-century matrix logic model – a fancy way of saying “grid” – that presents easy-to-understand consequences of our beliefs and is easily repurposed for today’s need to influence support for climate change mitigation measures, such as investing and using renewable energy.
Pascal’s Wager was initially designed to influence one into believing in God by showing the consequences of believing in God versus not believing in God. We can repurpose this grid to influence one into supporting climate change mitigation measures by showing the consequences of supporting such measures versus not supporting them. (Disclaimer: Although it may not necessarily change one’s belief in human-caused climate change or even climate change.) If we step back and think about the reality of climate change, especially human-caused climate change, the idea of repurposing Pascal’s Wager may prove invaluable.
How does it work? First, a brief history review is necessary for some context.
In 1654, Blaise Pascal – a notable French philosopher, theologian, physicist, and mathematician6 (credited for laying down the foundation for the theory of probability and for inventing the game of roulette, among many contributions) had a religious awakening and created the famous logic model known as Pascal’s Wager. The “Wager” is an argument based on mathematical probability that belief in God is probably a good bet.7 In effect, it was highlighting a decision under uncertainty.
It works like this: The “Wager” takes two positions on: 1. God’s existence; and 2. Belief in God. If God does not exist, it does not matter whether you believe in God or not as you have lost nothing. On the other hand, if God does exist and you do not believe in God, then you lose everything and go to hell. However, if God does exist and you believe in him, then you gain everything and go to heaven. The logic is, that you should believe in God regardless of knowing for sure if God exists because the consequences experienced if God exists are substantial: you either win (go to heaven) or lose (go to hell).
This logic model fails because belief in God in not based on logic; it is based on faith. People cannot be forced to have faith based on a logic model. Moreover, this logic model requires that individuals believe in hell and heaven to be successful. If an individual does not have belief in God, then that individual most likely does not believe in hell or heaven. Atheists reject these concepts8 and, as such, would reject this logic model based on this fact alone and, as a result, would not be persuaded by this logic model.
Pascal’s Wager is meant to benefit the individuals who do not believe in God and not the community per se. Although it may be disconcerting for members of the community that an individual does not believe in God and causes these members anxiety for the individual’s eternal soul. Belief in God is up to the individual and, if God exists, is a relationship between that individual and God.
So how does this model apply to climate change?
Although not successful as a tool to change an individual’s mind about their belief in God, Pascal’s Wager’s logic model can be successful when applied to support climate change mitigation measures. We can use the logic model to take two positions: 1) the existence of human-caused climate change; and 2) the belief that climate change mitigation measures will reduce the harmful effects of human-caused climate change.
It works like this: If human-caused climate change does not exist, it does not matter whether you believe that climate change mitigation measures will reduce the damage humans have caused or not as you have lost nothing. On the other hand, if human-caused climate change does exist and you do not believe in climate change mitigation measures, then we all lose everything – our home, or world, our planet. However, if human-caused climate change does exist and you believe in climate change mitigation measures, then we all gain everything because we will begin investing in clean energy and reducing the harmful effects of burning oil and coal.
What does losing look like? A hotter planet, more volatile weather systems, toxic air, toxic water, toxic soil, and toxic oceans. It looks like climate refugees fleeing from uninhabitable areas to more habitable areas. The few people not committed to climate change mitigation measures can ruin our earth for everyone.
What does winning look like? Clean air9, clean water10, clean soil11, and clean oceans12. It looks like millions of high-paying jobs driving the more abundant and productive use of energy.13 However, we must all work together.
It is difficult to believe that there are still climate change deniers as the evidence is overwhelming. From melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and extreme weather patterns. My colleague, Skip Laitner, has pointed out that many recent wildfires, floodings and record temperatures around the world contribute to economic damage and we may soon see “Climate Change as an Economic Damage Function.” Yikes!
Climate change affects every individual and every community. We can create heaven on earth through climate change mitigation measures, such as using renewable energy, or we can create hell on earth by continuing with a business-as-usual attitude. It is each and every individual’s and community’s responsibility to engage in climate change mitigation such that we all benefit. Climate change, unlike belief in God, is not about one individual it is about every individual.
Let’s face it – no one is standing behind a running, gas-fueled car to inhale its fumes – at least not on purpose. It smells disgusting and we know it is bad to breath in gas fumes.
Ok, here’s the thing. We can use the “Wager” as an argument based on the mathematical probability that belief in climate mitigation measures is probably a good bet. We are in a prime position to make decisions about our future even during this uncertain time. We may not be able to convince everyone, but it does not matter as long as we can convince a sufficient number of nay-sayers, especially in terms of the economic benefits associated with investments in clean energy.
Investments in clean energy will bring millions of high-paying jobs that do not require advanced degrees and these jobs will create abundant, reliable, efficient energy for the future. And, by the way, if anyone who reads this article and takes the time to check out all of the references may come to find that, yes, climate change is real, and, more critically, that investment in climate change solutions actually can create many, many positive outcomes.13
References
There is neither a law of physics nor economics that prevents us from quadrupling the productive use of energy and other resources. Rather, it is much more an issue of imagination and our political will to get it done.
– John A. “Skip” Laitner