The Lake Conundrum and How It Is Related to the Year 2020

I came across an interesting video, which was released by the project “Astra Nova,” which is related to the “Ad Astra” school created by Elon Musk.

Even though this is a challenge for kids aged 8 to 13 years old, I still find it very curious and wanted to use an opportunity to show my thought process on this.

It goes like this:

There is a large lake near a small town. A corporation — town's largest employer — dumps harmful chemicals into the lake. Scientists, after studying the lake, agree that the lake will die in 10 years if the pollution continues. The puppet master — an individual who is afraid that new regulations would affect their business empire — decides that the conversation needs to be more balanced. The puppet master forms their own science research group called “Scientists for a Clean Lake,” and places a small group of these scientists to publish bogus research that claims that the lake has never been healthier. The media reports that the new scientific study shows that the lake is in good health. Politicians have the power to stop the pollution, but they decide that the action against the corporation is too risky since there does not seem to be agreement among the scientists, and the company employs so many people in the town. The voters that live near the lake listen to the media, politicians and scientists and become deeply divided and confused. They are not sure if the lake is nearly dead, in great health or somewhere in between. The voters reelect the politicians. The corporation continues dumping the chemicals into the lake. 10 years later the lake dies.

Question: Who is most to blame?

A. The Corporation

B. The Scientists

C. The Puppet Master

D. The Media

E. The Politicians

F. The Voters

At first, it seems undeniable that all parties are at fault. However, even though they might all be at fault, it seems that the degree to which they are to blame may differ. It also seems intuitive that this evil guy “puppet master” might be the answer.

But how do we determine the magnitude of fault or guilt? It seems that the scientists, media, and politicians are just tools that are being used, and their contribution is secondary to those who use these tools whether that is voters or corporations. To illustrate further, if there was no puppetmaster, then there would have been no fake science group and media would not lie, and the voters would have chosen to save the lake. This shows that all these tools between the corporation and the people were working in the interest of voters. The puppetmaster works with the interests of the corporation in mind, he is their tool, and he causes these tools to malfunction. So, using this logic, it seems that those who use the tools are at greater fault than they themselves. With this, we can eliminate everything to just the corporation and voters.

At the end of the day, if voters solidarily chose to save the lake, the lake would have been saved. Voters do have the choice to save the lake. The corporation, however, doesn’t really have a choice. Its main interest is to keep profiting from taking the most convenient path, and this convenient path involves killing the lake, and it will continue doing so if there are no blockers in the way. Logically, you can’t blame gravity for pulling things down, or any other natural phenomenon for that matter, even if they are very destructive.

However, when somebody has choices, no matter how likely they are to choose, or how influenced they are, and, by choosing one of the choices, something happens that could have been avoided by choosing otherwise, this somebody is at greater fault in this case, as opposed to if they didn’t have those choices.

Therefore, the answer is F. It is the voters that are at greater fault for the destruction of the lake.

But now that we know the right answer, the question now is how this situation could have been avoided?

Had the voters known from the beginning that the most blame would have been on them in case the lake dies, they would have probably ensured that they are aware of their choices. This seems that a simple wager similar to Pascal’s would be enough to determine the right path.

Simple logic shows that to admit that the lake should be protected is the safest way to ensure that lake lives 100%.

The Year 2020

Now, I would like to draw a parallel between this conundrum and the situation we have in 2020. There are many outrageous events we are facing today. To name a few: coronavirus, racial and gender injustice, corrupted politicians, climate change, and so on. And there is a lot of choices that we are facing today. At the end of the day, considering the answer we arrived at, it is clear that we are most to blame if things go down.

If we know that it is our responsibility and that we are going to be at fault, we need to unite on clear and simple goals and clear and simple logic to overcome the division that the mechanisms in power impose on us.

Unity and simplicity is our greatest weapon.

For example, want to combat the virus spread, yet not sure who to believe whether it is important to wear a face mask? Then use a simple wager:

According to this logic, wearing a mask is the safest bet there is because you have a 100% chance the spread is not increased. Otherwise, the chance is just 50%.