I take it for granted that mean global temperature is a proxy for climate change. We should bet it. Bet temperature 10 years out. If we bet a higher temperature than today, then we release money used for efficiency, the counter bet.
We bet the future temperature, we create this counter flow of events that must occur for the bet to be true. We end up knowing future temperature better. Since precision is limited, we end up knowing short term weather worse. By entanglement we participate in the chain of events from today's temperature to tomorrows, become part of a quantized chain causing temperature. Hence by definition we are maximally solvent concerning future climate change. It works via hedging, the more the better knows about weather change, the better he can hedge a weather bet.
For example. Consider the Siberian tundra. Many would bet that the tundra drives temperature to a known value. Someone with a surface spray, a better sealing grass or moss, a curative process would take the opposite bet. The bets would determine future value in land use, bets against high tides would be hedged by industries useful having utility in high tides. As we get balanced adaption by this process, the net affect is lower temperature by pre-computing efficiency use of entropy.
Even my current passion for sunspots would be good, we would like to coordinate with sunspots, actually seek and monetize the channel between sunspots and futures betting, sort of return to a Sun religion. Embrace entanglement and keep it optimum.
No comments:
Post a Comment