Chapter 9: Greg's Grid

[troymc]

First a couple of caveats. I know:

a) there are no right/wrong answers on the decision grid
b) Greg's grid is his own, is only an example to work from, etc

But, I was surprised to see that he dropped "Peak Oil" and "overpopulation" in the top right square of his grid. In the context of the book, which was pretty well focused on AGCC & its economic impacts, bringing these 2 factors into play here seemed kind of from out of left field. One person who read thru it said he felt Greg had sandbagged that square - coincidentally(?) the one "good" square the denialists shoot for. Particularly since there is no reason to limit the effects of those two to only that square. eg. both factors would impact us in the top left square too, so maybe that one should be downgraded to a full frowny face? Now granted Peak Oil is at least also mentioned in the bottom left, and overpopulation & exponential growth would essentially be solved by the bottom right.

My attempted points being: One, peak oil & overpopulation were brought in out of the blue with little discussion/explanation. And, two, they weren't applied evenly, but appeared to be focused primarily on downgrading the top right square.

Now, I strongly agree that those 2 things are incredibly important on their own. It just seemed very out of place to have them pop up in there, like maybe they were a last-minute addition/change and not fully integrated into the logical flow of the rest of the book.


troymc

[wonderingmind42]

Originally Posted by troymc

First a couple of caveats. I know:

a) there are no right/wrong answers on the decision grid
b) Greg's grid is his own, is only an example to work from, etc

But, I was surprised to see that he dropped "Peak Oil" and "overpopulation" in the top right square of his grid. In the context of the book, which was pretty well focused on AGCC & its economic impacts, bringing these 2 factors into play here seemed kind of from out of left field. One person who read thru it said he felt Greg had sandbagged that square - coincidentally(?) the one "good" square the denialists shoot for. Particularly since there is no reason to limit the effects of those two to only that square. eg. both factors would impact us in the top left square too, so maybe that one should be downgraded to a full frowny face? Now granted Peak Oil is at least also mentioned in the bottom left, and overpopulation & exponential growth would essentially be solved by the bottom right.

My attempted points being: One, peak oil & overpopulation were brought in out of the blue with little discussion/explanation. And, two, they weren't applied evenly, but appeared to be focused primarily on downgrading the top right square.

Now, I strongly agree that those 2 things are incredibly important on their own. It just seemed very out of place to have them pop up in there, like maybe they were a last-minute addition/change and not fully integrated into the logical flow of the rest of the book.


troymc

Hmm. Excellent point, troy. Sloppy mistake on my part. I'm going to pull the excuse of "going too fast in writing the book."

If it's going to be brought in, it sure seems that it needs to be applied evenly. The one argument for NOT applying it evenly would be that--since the space is limited in each square--in the other squares it doesn't meet the threshold of "significant enough" vis-a-vis the other elements in that square. That is, each square only lists the top two or three most significant points in that square, and in the remaining three squares, more significant things are happening, so only in the top right does it bubble to the top.

I'm not making the argument that this is the case--would have to spend more time analyzing it--but just saying that is one structure by which one might end up justifying the choice to not put it in all the squares.

Plus, if you put it in all the squares (which sort of really is my assessment), then on the face of it you just get the result "We're hosed. Humanity flunks." and everybody stops reading. Self-fulfilling prophecy there. I do think we have a window of hope. It's a delicate titration though, showing enough of the scariness of physical reality to break through people's daily concerns, but not so much to turn them to despair. I have yet to see someone be successful at it. This book is my shot, and if precedent is any, um, precedent, then my attempt at that titration will fail as well.

But, to quote my favorite toast before a final exam: "If we must fail, then let us fail nobly."

Thanks for the analysis.

Cheers,