Thomas Schelling in action

Schelling, writing on global warming, discusses various strategies for dealing with uncertain risks. He says, “Neither of these two principles makes sense, economically or otherwise.”

However, he has just discussed three, not two, principles: the Bush administration position that the uncertainty of global warming makes action unwise; the “insurance” principle that anticipatory action is justified in the face of risk; and the precautionary principle, which requires guaranteed safety of a new technology before it is allowed, even in the face of expected benefits.

Do you think he meant that none of these three principles makes sense? Or is one of them OK, and he only means to criticize the other two? If so, which one of them is OK?

Is it realistic?

I’ll be interested to see how much traffic this company gets over time. Certainly there is a segment of the population who it appeals to. That said, I think most Americans (esp. those with eating issues or addictions) would just see this as a dumb idea an academic economist would come up with (and, btw, I am an academic economist!). I think most of these people would think as follows: “I am unhappy and fat now, so, if I use this I will be unhappy, fat, and poor.† The people who REALLY need what this site offers will never use it which should also make us reconsider all the programs our govt puts out there to help people who don’t want to help themselves.