In the book review of The Bet by Michael R. Greenberg, he begins by first introducing The Bet to the reader, summarizing the main points and giving background information on Ehrlich and Simon. Greenberg goes on to discuss the risk analysis that is seen in the book, pointing out the lack of focus on the aspect of uncertainty taking place in both Ehrlich and Simon's works. Greenberg also critiques the way in which Ehrlich and Simon went about debating their opinions. The review takes the position that their debating was not only unprofessional, but also led to the continued polarization of society on these issues. Overall, Greenberg liked how Sabin wrote the material, but he took a bigger moral picture from the writing than simply a historical view of the bet.
I tend to agree with Greenberg's views in his book review. When Greenberg says the reader learns " the political and personal issues behind the arguments [as well as] the wisdom of using abusive language and tactics in delivering arguments," in conjunction with his previous statement that the extremes can lead to polarizing problems, I think that logically summarizes Sabin's final chapter. Sabin leaves the final conclusion to the reader after providing a neutral basis for learning about Ehrlich and Simon and numerous risk-related debates of the past.
I liked Greenberg's point that: "Instead of saying that the future is uncertain, admit that reality, and focus on how to increase certainty, these two acclaimed experts and their colleagues picked the same starting point, inserted their values as assumptions into their global risk assessments, and then drew conclusions." I like that idea that we need to admit when we don't know, and use that uncertainty as an important part of our decision making.
ReplyDelete