The Most Terrifying Video You Ll Ever See By Greg Craven

The video “The Most Terrifying Video you’ll Ever See” by Greg Craven is a video that discusses whether there should be significant action taken on climate change. Craven addresses one of the main problems with the climate change debate, which is that it has become a long bitter argument about whether climate change is real and if it is caused by human development. He is arguing that it doesn’t matter if climate change is real or not, significant action should be taken to further prevent or combat climate change because when faced with uncertainty about the future taking action is the only reasonable choice. I disagree with Craven because there should be a greater focus on information and facts when it comes to making a decision about climate …show more content…
From his hyperbolic title to only equating the extremes of action and inaction of climate change bait people into clicking on his video and sharing it. It also serves to make his argument more urgent. By beginning the video with the question, “what’s the worst that could happen?” he leads the audience through his argument and to the conclusion he makes. The worst thing that could happen, according to Craven, are environmental, political, social, public health and economic global impacts caused by inaction on climate change. He also says at the beginning of his video that the world may not recover from the “worst” thing that may happen to us. Craven also makes his argument to appear as if it will easily cater to anyone, from “the most hardened skeptic to the most panicked activist” (1:06). He uses a gambling metaphor by rhetorically giving the audience a choice in the form of two lottery tickets. Lottery ticket A will be significant action for climate change and lottery ticket B is inaction. When Lottery ticket A is chosen then we take the risk of a global depression in exchange for taking significant action against climate change, with B we risk “the end of the world as we know it” (2:53). Which is how he leads the audience to his conclusion that is does not matter is climate change is real or not there still should be significant action taken. With the given information, which are only the extreme …show more content…
Craven oversimplifies the issue, and although it may have been deliberate in order to make is argument seem more crucial, by only discussing the extreme cases he misses other factors that should be considered. We cannot fully consider the risks unless we actually know what we are risking. When Craven is discussing what taking action will be like he only discusses the cost. Although significant action may be costly there are also other factors to consider, like how significant action for climate change will affect our daily lives. In the essay “Science says revolt!” by Naomi Klein the significant action for climate change that she is calling for is revolutionary because in her perspective global capitalism is the root of the climate change problem. The dismantling of capitalism would be destructive to the world that we know now. Without knowing what significant action that Craven is calling for, other than just some action towards combating climate change, it is impossible to make and educated and well informed decision about it. Oversimplifying a complicated issue in order to make a decision about should not be the way in which we solve it, so discussing climate change in the terms of risks and risk management is just not feasible without knowing what kind of actions that would be taken. Decisions should not be made by guessing what our