Now that we have got to grips with the principle of Pascal's Wager, we can apply it to the more pressing problem of Global Warming.
There is no doubt that the climate is changing: everyone appears to agree that there is an upward annual trend in average global temperature.
What is in dispute is whether it is caused by
us (anthropogenic) through our burning of fossil fuels, or whether it happening because of some factor beyond our control, for example, by solar activity? And then, should we try to do anything about it by reducing our carbon emissions?
So again we can postulate the four possible situations:
Situation 1. Human induced global warming is happening, and we try to do something
Situation 2. Human induced global warming is happening, and we
don't try to do something
Situation 3. Human induced global warming is NOT happening, and we try to do something
Situation 4. Human induced global warming is NOT happening, and we
don't try to do something
Here, the consequences of the different options are not quite so clear cut as in the original Pascal's Wager. Let's consider them.
Situation 1. Human induced global warming is happening, and we try to do something
Consequence: we may succeed and stabilise the climate
Situation 2. Human induced global warming is happening, and we
don't try to do something
Consequence: Climatologists predict that the earth may become close to uninhabitable
Situation 3. Human induced global warming is NOT happening, and we try to do something
Consequence: Unlike Pascal's wager, we would still incur a benefit. At least, our fossil fuels will last a little longer and give us time to develop alternative technologies.
Situation 4. Human induced global warming is NOT happening, and we
don't try to do something
Consequence: We carry on as we are, being profligate with our resources with evident environmental deterioration.
Now, unlike Pascal's Wager, "doing something", whether human induced global warming is happening or not, brings a benefit to humanity.
On the other hand, the risk of NOT doing something, if it is actually happening, is too awful to contemplate.
Of course, in reality, the situation is more complex than this. It presupposes that any "action" is effective, and that we haven't already passed the "tipping point" (point of no return). If you can spare a few minutes, please take a look at
this U-tube delivery of the argument in full (it is called "The most terrifying video you will ever see").
If you are gluttons for punishment, there is a lengthy discussion of the position on a forum
here.
It's up to you.