Using the doomsday scenarios of global warming, nuclear winter, and ozone depletion as examples, Haller (contemporary studies, Wilfrid Laurier U., Canada) explores how one should judge the criteria for evaluating possibilities of catastrophe. His central concern is finding the most rational approach to such possibilities when there is no reliable estimate of the likelihood of catastrophe. He suggests that even if one rejects epistemological and ethical arguments regarding possible disasters, one should be convinced by Pascalian arguments suggesting a precautionary principle even in the absence of reliable evidence. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR