Re[3]: 05.11.2014-23:21:34 :: Something smarter than us is going to emerge


node:	Re[3]: 05.11.2014-23:21:34
template:	4
parent:	Re[2]: 05.11.2014-23:21:34
owner:	ritomak
viewed by:
created:	09.11.2014 - 18:53:51

cwbe coordinatez:
101
63539
63556
63998
7751069
7753994
7754121
7754131

ABSOLUT
KYBERIA

permissions
you:	r,
system:	public
net:	yes

pre mna je uz dlhsie pri tejto teme najzasadnejsie toto:

"The risks of releasing genetically modified foods such as golden rice has to be weighed against the risks of not releasing them. Golden rice can provide children in developing countries with beta-carotene (a precursor to vitamin A) and thus prevent the serious consequences of vitamin A deficiency (VAD). According to the WHO:

—> Between 1/4 and 1/2 million children become blind every year because of VAD.
—> Half of them die within one year after going blind.

Preventing half a million children per year from going blind is the same as urging poor people to play Russian roulette to get out of poverty?"

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994077541210775413107754145

zase ten isty problem - 'has to be weighed'. preco by muselo?

00000101000635390006355600063998077510690775399407754121077541310775414507754160

pretoze to dava zmysel?

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754131077541450775416007754196

No to prave nedava, pretoze ten paper nie je cost-benefit analyza. To je proste uplna ina tema.

e: ochutnavka:

III. WHY RUIN IS SERIOUS BUSINESS
The risk of ruin is not sustainable. By the ruin theorems, if
you incur a tiny probability of ruin as a "one-off" risk, survive
it, then do it again (another "one-off" deal), you will eventually
go bust with probability 1. ... For this reason a strategy
of risk taking is not sustainable and we must consider any
genuine risk of total ruin as if it were inevitable.

The good news is that some classes of risk can be deemed
to be practically of probability zero: the earth survived trillions
of natural variations daily over 3 billion years, otherwise we
would not be here. By recognizing that normal risks are not
in the category of ruin problems, we recognize also that it
is not necessary or even normal to take risks that involve a
possibility of ruin.

pripadne:
Because the “cost” of ruin is effectively infinite, cost-benefit
analysis (in which the potential harm and potential gain are
multiplied by their probabilities and weighed against each
other) is no longer a useful paradigm. Even if probabilities
are expected to be zero but have a non-zero uncertainty,
then a sensitivity analysis that considers the impact of that
uncertainty results in infinities as well. The potential harm is
so substantial that everything else in the equation ceases to
matter. In this case, we must do everything we can to avoid
the catastrophe.

0000010100063539000635560006399807751069077539940775412107754131077541450775416007754191

Dava to zmysel pri porovnani s tym, ako by to vyzeralo v 3rd world countries bez golden rice.
ale
dava to zmysel aj pri porovnani s tym, ako geneticky modifikovane potraviny ovplyvnuju vyvoj pestovania potravin alebo stravovanie priemerneho europana?

000001010006353900063556000639980775106907753994077541210775413107754145077541600775419107754223

samozrejme, ze zlata ryza pre priemerneho europana nepredstavuje ziadnu nevyhnutnost, zatial co pre miliony ludi z krajin tretieho sveta to moze byt faktor rozhodujuci medzi zivotom/smrtou.