There is some level of crowding to factor in there, but in general so long as the projects are public works (which wouldn't be built by private enterprise) this is a fine premise. Public basics like infrastructure or basic scientific research tend to have extensive positive benefits which pay out over time well. That isn't generally what government has been spending money on or at least, it isn't the portion of spending which is aggravating. Plus to me it isn't enough to simply spend money on say education. As a sports analogy, throwing money around will only get you a lot of overpaid athletes and not necessarily the best team.
The critical issue, the bone I pick with this principle of Keynesian economics is that there are few politicians willing to reign in spending during boom economies and haul in surpluses for when we might need government injections. The money continues to be spent. The alternative is to play havoc with the tax code every few years as the economy cycles. Clinton/Gingrich budgeting was a hopeful sign, but not one which seems to have resonated with anyone now in power. Anyone can say they want to pay down their debts, it is rather like the first step in addiction treatment. I'd like to see them doing something to stop the problem as well.
The usual argument that the general public could spend the money better or more efficiently than the government isn't panning out anymore (much to my chagrin). Neither spends money all that well in the present system. The fact that government officials often "waste" tax monies shouldn't surprise us.
22 August 2008
21 August 2008
age matters?
I'm not sure what the fuss has been on the Chinese gymnasts ages. I'm aware of a rule on age. I hadn't considered that being more flexible from being younger is an advantage. But given that someone with an extra year of practice, strength, experience, etc should probably overcome that disadvantage in most cases. It doesn't make much sense to be this concerned about it (at least as concerned as NBC commentators have been). In most other sports, youth isn't generally any advantage at all (rookies usually take a year or more to adjust to the skill level and physically). I would suppose here it can be..but it still doesn't seem like it should be nearly so important as it is made out to be.
On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense to be going to Orwellian lengths to cover it up either by removing old news stories on the specific gymnasts as the Chinese have done.
Still though, the best part of the whole story was the recall of a North Korean who was listed as 15 for 3 years in a row back in the early 90s. You'd think someone would have noticed by the second year. That sort of rule evasion is so blatantly obvious as to be amusing. This sort looks to me like either sour losers (America ended up with a good number of silvers herein), or a problem with the rule itself. If we had more government complicity here the NBA or NFL's age restrictions would probably come up just as controversial.
On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense to be going to Orwellian lengths to cover it up either by removing old news stories on the specific gymnasts as the Chinese have done.
Still though, the best part of the whole story was the recall of a North Korean who was listed as 15 for 3 years in a row back in the early 90s. You'd think someone would have noticed by the second year. That sort of rule evasion is so blatantly obvious as to be amusing. This sort looks to me like either sour losers (America ended up with a good number of silvers herein), or a problem with the rule itself. If we had more government complicity here the NBA or NFL's age restrictions would probably come up just as controversial.
paid not to play
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/
I wasn't particularly surprised by this type of news. After all, with all the home schooled or abstinence schooled kids out there, most of them don't have a clue how to prevent pregnancy during their inevitable experiments with sex. Some of them probably don't even want to, as indicated.
What piqued my interest though was this one:
"....said we'll pay any woman between the ages of 13 and 18 who lives in some defined state, county or region $50 each month they can demonstrate that: (1) they are in school; (2) they meet income eligibility for school lunch programs, and (3) are not pregnant...." - This is perhaps the opposite effect of any attempts to punish teenage, or other "unfulfilling" single pregnancies. I've seen companies and their health insurance policies paying bounties for things like quitting smoking or going on a diet, joining a gym, etc. These have been surprisingly effective, even with minimal bounties (well below $50) for people of working age who earn real incomes (for whom an extra $10 or less shouldn't matter). This would be a similar scenario, a bounty not to get pregnant. Where people are poor enough, it's probable that $50 would go a long way as a consistent income stream. If nothing else it could go toward the cost of preventive pregnancy.
What troubles me is that it might take a government entity to enact it, but it's also probable that this would reap a number of positive externalities: lower crime rates from lower birth rates, more teens able to pursue college (not that this is necessarily a functional plan), possibly more of those potential teenage mothers finding fathers who are willing/able to be supportive. If that's so, it's something like an investment to lower the costs of crime prevention or scholarship funding in 15-20 years. Which makes it doubtful ever to happen.
I wasn't particularly surprised by this type of news. After all, with all the home schooled or abstinence schooled kids out there, most of them don't have a clue how to prevent pregnancy during their inevitable experiments with sex. Some of them probably don't even want to, as indicated.
What piqued my interest though was this one:
"....said we'll pay any woman between the ages of 13 and 18 who lives in some defined state, county or region $50 each month they can demonstrate that: (1) they are in school; (2) they meet income eligibility for school lunch programs, and (3) are not pregnant...." - This is perhaps the opposite effect of any attempts to punish teenage, or other "unfulfilling" single pregnancies. I've seen companies and their health insurance policies paying bounties for things like quitting smoking or going on a diet, joining a gym, etc. These have been surprisingly effective, even with minimal bounties (well below $50) for people of working age who earn real incomes (for whom an extra $10 or less shouldn't matter). This would be a similar scenario, a bounty not to get pregnant. Where people are poor enough, it's probable that $50 would go a long way as a consistent income stream. If nothing else it could go toward the cost of preventive pregnancy.
What troubles me is that it might take a government entity to enact it, but it's also probable that this would reap a number of positive externalities: lower crime rates from lower birth rates, more teens able to pursue college (not that this is necessarily a functional plan), possibly more of those potential teenage mothers finding fathers who are willing/able to be supportive. If that's so, it's something like an investment to lower the costs of crime prevention or scholarship funding in 15-20 years. Which makes it doubtful ever to happen.
20 August 2008
quit whining
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9585
Oh by the way...gas (and energy in general) isn't that expensive in America. . yet. And since it's been going down anyway...it's not going to be a major issue...yet.
This is probably the most realistic economic way to look at it, not via the silly signs with the 9/10 cents per gallon charges. It should be looked at per budget/per wallet. That article in general does not continue the parallel to the world, especially the rest of the developed world, where energy costs are considerably higher still and hence resource use is much more efficient. Probably because that's not supposed to be mentioned either.
Much as few politicians are willing to say "quit bitching" to the American public when it isn't ridiculously expensive, just way more expensive than it was recently. I'd doubt further that people would extend the topic to decide whether having higher energy costs is actually a boon for economic growth, via the necessity of energy efficient methods and high tech operations to take advantage of them, research them, etc. Naturally it puts a bit of a crimp on things while the price of energy rises. But in truth, with a global market, there have been companies moving in this direction for decades. Most of them just don't have American names and/or products that say "Made in America" on them. Since GM & co more or less missed the bus and gasoline was recently dirt cheap, we as a society have foolishly squandered the opportunity to create most of the jobs in those new sectors. This however isn't quite the same as investing in the market, where missing the bus means you lose. It just means we're not very good at playing the market anymore (because our companies/unions have gotten too used to rigging it so they can "win"). For all the harping different parties do on the markets in this country, they don't seem to understand the damage they cause to it by allowing corporations to play games with how the markets work. Things which line one's pockets, or alternatively, line the pockets of major contributors (and influential constituents) are much more important now days.
This in effect is one of the two major outcomes of a social democracy with a capitalist economy. Either the social factors win and usurp power over industry or the industry usurps power over the government (and by extension, the people). It would seem to me that somewhere along the line, the people forgot how to fight back. Much of the democratic republic here in America is based on the continuous battle between those who don't trust the people (such as industrial giants or other aristocratic forms), and those who don't trust the powerful (usually the peons who work for them). It's possible, and generally preferred, when there is a sort of benevolent truce between the two sides and they can work toward some common goals, rather than waging an undeclared war by reversing more active policies constantly and confusing everyone in the game. For example, businesses who take care of their workers first will tend to profit more over time as the workforce they employ will generally take better care of that businesses' consumers. We used to have something like this with organized labor, but that has long since become yet another stultifying force, fixed on issues which no longer matter or which are no longer afforded by the best interests of either worker bee and corporate titan. When the powerful need take no notice, and the powerless are content to bitch about the meaningless, we are left with something that doesn't at all resemble democracy or capitalism. It doesn't at all sound like my kind of town, but at least I could say it's been a long time coming (or at least Russell could say that).
Oh by the way...gas (and energy in general) isn't that expensive in America. . yet. And since it's been going down anyway...it's not going to be a major issue...yet.
This is probably the most realistic economic way to look at it, not via the silly signs with the 9/10 cents per gallon charges. It should be looked at per budget/per wallet. That article in general does not continue the parallel to the world, especially the rest of the developed world, where energy costs are considerably higher still and hence resource use is much more efficient. Probably because that's not supposed to be mentioned either.
Much as few politicians are willing to say "quit bitching" to the American public when it isn't ridiculously expensive, just way more expensive than it was recently. I'd doubt further that people would extend the topic to decide whether having higher energy costs is actually a boon for economic growth, via the necessity of energy efficient methods and high tech operations to take advantage of them, research them, etc. Naturally it puts a bit of a crimp on things while the price of energy rises. But in truth, with a global market, there have been companies moving in this direction for decades. Most of them just don't have American names and/or products that say "Made in America" on them. Since GM & co more or less missed the bus and gasoline was recently dirt cheap, we as a society have foolishly squandered the opportunity to create most of the jobs in those new sectors. This however isn't quite the same as investing in the market, where missing the bus means you lose. It just means we're not very good at playing the market anymore (because our companies/unions have gotten too used to rigging it so they can "win"). For all the harping different parties do on the markets in this country, they don't seem to understand the damage they cause to it by allowing corporations to play games with how the markets work. Things which line one's pockets, or alternatively, line the pockets of major contributors (and influential constituents) are much more important now days.
This in effect is one of the two major outcomes of a social democracy with a capitalist economy. Either the social factors win and usurp power over industry or the industry usurps power over the government (and by extension, the people). It would seem to me that somewhere along the line, the people forgot how to fight back. Much of the democratic republic here in America is based on the continuous battle between those who don't trust the people (such as industrial giants or other aristocratic forms), and those who don't trust the powerful (usually the peons who work for them). It's possible, and generally preferred, when there is a sort of benevolent truce between the two sides and they can work toward some common goals, rather than waging an undeclared war by reversing more active policies constantly and confusing everyone in the game. For example, businesses who take care of their workers first will tend to profit more over time as the workforce they employ will generally take better care of that businesses' consumers. We used to have something like this with organized labor, but that has long since become yet another stultifying force, fixed on issues which no longer matter or which are no longer afforded by the best interests of either worker bee and corporate titan. When the powerful need take no notice, and the powerless are content to bitch about the meaningless, we are left with something that doesn't at all resemble democracy or capitalism. It doesn't at all sound like my kind of town, but at least I could say it's been a long time coming (or at least Russell could say that).
19 August 2008
drink up again
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/08/18/college.drinking.age.ap/index.html
Duh. We'd actually be best off if there was no 'drinking' age, but rather just the age restriction on purchases (@18). Calling it a legal drinking age implies certain things that aren't really true to begin with and restricts behavior which if properly moderated and monitored by some responsible entity is just fine for most people to partake in (except maybe people with addictive genetics). The net result of the 21 age is a large college population which is unmonitored and unmoderated and consequently drinks to excess (to the detriment of studying and health of course).
Americans are such idiots as a country when it comes to making these protective laws for children. They don't protect anything.
Duh. We'd actually be best off if there was no 'drinking' age, but rather just the age restriction on purchases (@18). Calling it a legal drinking age implies certain things that aren't really true to begin with and restricts behavior which if properly moderated and monitored by some responsible entity is just fine for most people to partake in (except maybe people with addictive genetics). The net result of the 21 age is a large college population which is unmonitored and unmoderated and consequently drinks to excess (to the detriment of studying and health of course).
Americans are such idiots as a country when it comes to making these protective laws for children. They don't protect anything.
15 August 2008
Georgia on my mind
I'm not sure what the buzz relating Georgian-Russian border disputes to American policies is about. Both directions too seem more than willing to do this. The old Cold Warrior nostalgia wants to have Russia back in the game as the bad guy we all love to hate. That force is painting this as a warning against Poland, Ukraine and other former Soviet bloc states which have aligned themselves with Western nations (in particular, the US). The Ukraine was however basically the only state to out and out call Russia on its behavior over the past week...which means either Western countries are still too terrified (or too busy) to deal with Russia or Russia is quite a bit weaker than we think (because the Ukraine is willing to pick on them?).
Conversely, we're being told that Russia went in because we essentially encouraged Georgia by training or arming their military. This makes less sense. Yes they have a better trained (than usual), better organized force of a couple divisions worth of troops. Russia can spare a few divisions to play war games with that. Why bother attacking a nation with 10 times the military force to bring to bear which isn't technologically lacking and certainly hasn't ever shown any qualms about bombing helpless civilians in order to 'get the job done'. What sort of encouragement were we giving here? Yes please go kill yourselves.
It sounds to me more like we said, well you're going to go kill yourselves anyway, let's give you some guns to make it more interesting, then sold those guns mostly through Israel so they get some money and we keep our hands cleaner, hoping nobody notices all the Western military gear laying around with USA stickers on it, and now that went poorly we get to look like the good guy by trying to bully Russia to back down a bit on its military operations and incursions against a weaker former satellite with some (weak) ties to Western Europe (I note with amusement the playing up of religious historical ties to Christianity by Georgian officials..despite the fact that Europe isn't exactly religious..hmm..wonder who they're talking about). Way to go us. That doesn't exactly sound like a strategic plan. It sounds more like a business model.
I suppose more likely this was a combination of the endless cycle of ethnic-nationalism conflicts which seem to plague mountainous regions (like the Balkans or Kashmir) which inevitably boil over without some autonomous concessions of government by the neighbouring ethnic groups (who usually have a few hundred years of vicious killings to prevent such concessions). Russia capitalized on this because it usually does historically rather well by playing between the divisions of ethnicity of what appear to be relatively similar groups of people (particularly by the lands they inhabit). I'd say Afghanistan was the last time they botched this. We used to be rather good at it too but we seem to have acquired this misguided perception that other people must be reasonably good at getting along living next to their sworn enemies because Americans come from all over the place (including the wealthy or educated fleeing such war torn regions). America hasn't always lived in harmony either, but we have an illusion of it at least available to us through the existence of a reasonable stable government with which to resolve our disputes more equitably. Georgia has a very poor track record here. Same with the Balkan states prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Pakistan isn't all that accommodating, etc.
So Russia stepped into a conflict that was basically the inevitable outpouring of some trivial ethnic dispute over some territory which is basically already ethnically divided into two states and capitalized. I don't see how this means they're about to crash the Iron Curtain back down over Eastern Europe when I haven't heard of separatist leaders all throughout Soviet bloc spin-offs for Russians to align themselves with and press advantage with.
Conversely, we're being told that Russia went in because we essentially encouraged Georgia by training or arming their military. This makes less sense. Yes they have a better trained (than usual), better organized force of a couple divisions worth of troops. Russia can spare a few divisions to play war games with that. Why bother attacking a nation with 10 times the military force to bring to bear which isn't technologically lacking and certainly hasn't ever shown any qualms about bombing helpless civilians in order to 'get the job done'. What sort of encouragement were we giving here? Yes please go kill yourselves.
It sounds to me more like we said, well you're going to go kill yourselves anyway, let's give you some guns to make it more interesting, then sold those guns mostly through Israel so they get some money and we keep our hands cleaner, hoping nobody notices all the Western military gear laying around with USA stickers on it, and now that went poorly we get to look like the good guy by trying to bully Russia to back down a bit on its military operations and incursions against a weaker former satellite with some (weak) ties to Western Europe (I note with amusement the playing up of religious historical ties to Christianity by Georgian officials..despite the fact that Europe isn't exactly religious..hmm..wonder who they're talking about). Way to go us. That doesn't exactly sound like a strategic plan. It sounds more like a business model.
I suppose more likely this was a combination of the endless cycle of ethnic-nationalism conflicts which seem to plague mountainous regions (like the Balkans or Kashmir) which inevitably boil over without some autonomous concessions of government by the neighbouring ethnic groups (who usually have a few hundred years of vicious killings to prevent such concessions). Russia capitalized on this because it usually does historically rather well by playing between the divisions of ethnicity of what appear to be relatively similar groups of people (particularly by the lands they inhabit). I'd say Afghanistan was the last time they botched this. We used to be rather good at it too but we seem to have acquired this misguided perception that other people must be reasonably good at getting along living next to their sworn enemies because Americans come from all over the place (including the wealthy or educated fleeing such war torn regions). America hasn't always lived in harmony either, but we have an illusion of it at least available to us through the existence of a reasonable stable government with which to resolve our disputes more equitably. Georgia has a very poor track record here. Same with the Balkan states prior to the breakup of Yugoslavia, Pakistan isn't all that accommodating, etc.
So Russia stepped into a conflict that was basically the inevitable outpouring of some trivial ethnic dispute over some territory which is basically already ethnically divided into two states and capitalized. I don't see how this means they're about to crash the Iron Curtain back down over Eastern Europe when I haven't heard of separatist leaders all throughout Soviet bloc spin-offs for Russians to align themselves with and press advantage with.
Olympic cut sports
Just as a counter-point to the unceremonious dumping of softball (baseball being dropped is pretty obviously a good idea). It was decided on an ESPN radio show to list off other Olympic sports to cut. So here's my list:
1) Trampoline. Wow. This is an Olympic sport? We used to goof off in the backyard, had I known I could become a famous "athlete" this easily...
2) Rhythmic gymnastics. Gymnastics in its normal sense is fine, it's athletic competition which has complicated rules that no one understands (perfect for Olympic events). This is dancing with medals and ribbons. I've heard it favorably compared to having attention starved young women dance here instead of on a pole. That also doesn't seem like a good idea for an Olympic medal.
3) Sailing. There are already yachting races for more prestige and money..and there are plenty of snotty rich white person events already (horses, fencing, gymnastics, rowing, ice skating, etc). More interesting use of that money might be something like jet skis used X-games style to do tricks and place humans in mortal peril. But that's just my opinion.
People emailing in were complaining about synchronized swimming/diving..which is a bit strange, but at least its a team sort of event which is difficult and requires several skills of athletic ability and coordination. I'm not sure it belongs either. But simply because we get our butts kicked in diving and non competitive swimming events doesn't make it a non-sport.. so I'm not sure how to rule on those two.
Similarly people were complaining about shooting events (and confused as to how Americans weren't winning them..probably because the targets weren't people shaped and moving). On that at least, I can see merit to having an individual/team medals. It's just not that compelling to watch people shoot at targets, but at least it's worth rewarding skill in. Rather than having such people to practice with real human targets.
1) Trampoline. Wow. This is an Olympic sport? We used to goof off in the backyard, had I known I could become a famous "athlete" this easily...
2) Rhythmic gymnastics. Gymnastics in its normal sense is fine, it's athletic competition which has complicated rules that no one understands (perfect for Olympic events). This is dancing with medals and ribbons. I've heard it favorably compared to having attention starved young women dance here instead of on a pole. That also doesn't seem like a good idea for an Olympic medal.
3) Sailing. There are already yachting races for more prestige and money..and there are plenty of snotty rich white person events already (horses, fencing, gymnastics, rowing, ice skating, etc). More interesting use of that money might be something like jet skis used X-games style to do tricks and place humans in mortal peril. But that's just my opinion.
People emailing in were complaining about synchronized swimming/diving..which is a bit strange, but at least its a team sort of event which is difficult and requires several skills of athletic ability and coordination. I'm not sure it belongs either. But simply because we get our butts kicked in diving and non competitive swimming events doesn't make it a non-sport.. so I'm not sure how to rule on those two.
Similarly people were complaining about shooting events (and confused as to how Americans weren't winning them..probably because the targets weren't people shaped and moving). On that at least, I can see merit to having an individual/team medals. It's just not that compelling to watch people shoot at targets, but at least it's worth rewarding skill in. Rather than having such people to practice with real human targets.
This is just silly
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029120/
Wasn't this already done with a Simpsons' episode (the one with the mall that buries an angel as a publicity stunt?). Basically people of religious faith will see a movie like this and come away over-joyed. The rest of us will wonder what the hell it was about.
Religion and its film history isn't exactly blessed with substantially rewarding films that other people get. There are good films with religion in them (like the Baptism scene in the Godfather or the overtones of Gnosticism in the Matrix). But it's usually because the religious spectacle involved is a metaphor for some other battle within the human 'soul', a good and evil paradox which interests ethical people everywhere (including those who are absent in faith). The actual demonstration of what is supposed to represent faith usually comes off as lunacy to others. The interesting dynamics in the areas religion is intended to help provide for human beings (relative balance/harmony/justice, etc) are good fodder for discussion and movie plots..but we don't need religion to discuss them or find them necessary. So I'd have to wonder why religious people persist in publicly appearing as incapable of reason in order to appeal to reasonable minds. It seems pretty silly.
I'd have to wonder why a Simpsons' episode seems the best at bridging this gap in a reasonable way (while still being somewhat amusing). I guess maybe Life of Brian could be included there as well. Comedy is probably the one area of life which mixes reason and lunacy. That's my explanation.
Wasn't this already done with a Simpsons' episode (the one with the mall that buries an angel as a publicity stunt?). Basically people of religious faith will see a movie like this and come away over-joyed. The rest of us will wonder what the hell it was about.
Religion and its film history isn't exactly blessed with substantially rewarding films that other people get. There are good films with religion in them (like the Baptism scene in the Godfather or the overtones of Gnosticism in the Matrix). But it's usually because the religious spectacle involved is a metaphor for some other battle within the human 'soul', a good and evil paradox which interests ethical people everywhere (including those who are absent in faith). The actual demonstration of what is supposed to represent faith usually comes off as lunacy to others. The interesting dynamics in the areas religion is intended to help provide for human beings (relative balance/harmony/justice, etc) are good fodder for discussion and movie plots..but we don't need religion to discuss them or find them necessary. So I'd have to wonder why religious people persist in publicly appearing as incapable of reason in order to appeal to reasonable minds. It seems pretty silly.
I'd have to wonder why a Simpsons' episode seems the best at bridging this gap in a reasonable way (while still being somewhat amusing). I guess maybe Life of Brian could be included there as well. Comedy is probably the one area of life which mixes reason and lunacy. That's my explanation.
Olympic first reactions
A couple things occurred to me during these early festivities.
First, who cares how old the Chinese gymnasts are. If they won, they won. It seems like a petty anti-Asian women age thing, where they always look too young for their age (commented on at stuffwhitepeoplelike). I realize there are rules. But sort of like pro baseball players from Puerto Rico or the Dominican, it's pretty much impossible to prove someone is one age if they want to demonstrate (and insist) they're not. If someone's from here, there are usually ways now to acquire the accurate information. I would expect the Chinese to be able to alter such information pretty easily. From the sound of it, they've already been engaging in revisionist history on previous stories on their gymnasts. Doublespeak is funny.
Second, the US basketball team looked pretty effective (apart from shooting 3s). It has been studied statistically to compare to the elite first two "Dream Teams" and found to be fairly close to the second ('96) as far as elitism. So the results thus far aren't surprising. What is amusing is people trying to make it out like this is a better team than that first one ('92). That team was truly loaded, even with Bird and Magic on the way out career wise. Laettner was the only weak link (and pretty much didn't play anyway). When your team plays other teams that want your autographs, it isn't a good sign that the game will be close. What this demonstrates is the consistent tendency to think the latest thing is the greatest thing. Progress isn't always a function of linear time. Novelty is different than greatness, but for many people it's hard to tell the difference. The same failing is occurring with Phelps v Spitz in swimming. My opinion. I don't care which is greater nor do I need someone telling me which is which. It's still impressive to see someone so dominate their competition once in a while.
First, who cares how old the Chinese gymnasts are. If they won, they won. It seems like a petty anti-Asian women age thing, where they always look too young for their age (commented on at stuffwhitepeoplelike). I realize there are rules. But sort of like pro baseball players from Puerto Rico or the Dominican, it's pretty much impossible to prove someone is one age if they want to demonstrate (and insist) they're not. If someone's from here, there are usually ways now to acquire the accurate information. I would expect the Chinese to be able to alter such information pretty easily. From the sound of it, they've already been engaging in revisionist history on previous stories on their gymnasts. Doublespeak is funny.
Second, the US basketball team looked pretty effective (apart from shooting 3s). It has been studied statistically to compare to the elite first two "Dream Teams" and found to be fairly close to the second ('96) as far as elitism. So the results thus far aren't surprising. What is amusing is people trying to make it out like this is a better team than that first one ('92). That team was truly loaded, even with Bird and Magic on the way out career wise. Laettner was the only weak link (and pretty much didn't play anyway). When your team plays other teams that want your autographs, it isn't a good sign that the game will be close. What this demonstrates is the consistent tendency to think the latest thing is the greatest thing. Progress isn't always a function of linear time. Novelty is different than greatness, but for many people it's hard to tell the difference. The same failing is occurring with Phelps v Spitz in swimming. My opinion. I don't care which is greater nor do I need someone telling me which is which. It's still impressive to see someone so dominate their competition once in a while.
14 August 2008
moderation of global environmentalism
Since this is fast becoming another 'religious' topic where no reasonable people can debate, I will now relate my moderating positions.
1) Global warming includes both man and natural factors to some degree. CO2 itself, as but one factor, is both created by natural and man-made factors. The correlation involved is not causation, in fact there is research which describes that the opposite may be true (that temperature increases increase CO2/carbon). Most of this suggests that the precise causes are muddled between natural variations and man made ones (ie, man is not the sole cause, nor is he innocent).
2) Most of the publicly consumed scenarios (such as just about anything put forth by Gore) are not universally accepted by scientific communities as they are quite dire. Computer modeling of environmental change is still quite uncertain because of the massive number of variable influences. Some things will come to pass regardless of human behavior (even behavior to moderate/eliminate pollutants) and some will only come to pass because of it. We aren't well versed enough to tell the difference or to know what precise effects we will have.
3) This does not mean that human behaviors can not or should not be moderated in conservation methods or through less environmental impacting methods of production. Quite the opposite it suggests we should be engaged in doing what we can to control our impact (especially where we understand what it is) on both ourselves and the global/local environments. This to me is a separate issue of importance relating to property rights rather than some method of saving the planet. If people feel it's a more important cause, go ahead and believe what you will. But don't tell me this is a selfless cause to save cute fuzzy creatures and green park lands because it isn't nor is saying so likely to induce productive and practicable measures to resolve the problem.
4) This also means that most of the money involved should be placed in adaptive methods of climate change. Natural variation will occur. Local climate changes occur from year to year anyway, as anyone in the central US or California could attest. Human beings have been involved in climate adaptation for thousands of years (usually by migrating). We have 'stopped' because of our modern urban technology dependencies and stubborn settlement of a particular place rather than particular climate conditions (for instance New Orleans or San Francisco probably aren't well situated because of natural events).
5) Most of the public figures involved in promoting global warming as a social cause are involved frequently in 'do as I say, not as I do' means of self-promotion. This indicates (to me) that they are attempting to capitalize on a fear-based event, rather than put forth solutions to avert it. It is more likely because of the enormous cost (to the expense of very certain and direct issues such as abject poverty or the scourge of malaria or AIDS) and enormous uncertainty involved that they do not have solutions (or at least they don't have solutions we can all "profit" from). We should be skeptical of these proposals, as we would be with any major leader who will directly profit from our exertions (religious, political, business) unless we ourselves share in the fruits of our labors.
6) Solutions must include any means of production or energy/resource efficiency that are available. Carbon credits haven't as I see them promoted American resource efficiency, instead what has done so is significantly raising gasoline/energy prices. Recapture devices are unlikely in the near term, but they are indeed worth implementing if the environmental externalities of production are directly imposed upon the industries involved in producing them through other costs. Energy costs which involve pollution should be conceived of as higher than those which have less or none because of their externalities. The cost of coal for example is rendered in the cost of respiratory disease for humans and in the cost of negative local climate changes in the quality of air and water..measured against the cost of not producing valuable energy for a given population.
1) Global warming includes both man and natural factors to some degree. CO2 itself, as but one factor, is both created by natural and man-made factors. The correlation involved is not causation, in fact there is research which describes that the opposite may be true (that temperature increases increase CO2/carbon). Most of this suggests that the precise causes are muddled between natural variations and man made ones (ie, man is not the sole cause, nor is he innocent).
2) Most of the publicly consumed scenarios (such as just about anything put forth by Gore) are not universally accepted by scientific communities as they are quite dire. Computer modeling of environmental change is still quite uncertain because of the massive number of variable influences. Some things will come to pass regardless of human behavior (even behavior to moderate/eliminate pollutants) and some will only come to pass because of it. We aren't well versed enough to tell the difference or to know what precise effects we will have.
3) This does not mean that human behaviors can not or should not be moderated in conservation methods or through less environmental impacting methods of production. Quite the opposite it suggests we should be engaged in doing what we can to control our impact (especially where we understand what it is) on both ourselves and the global/local environments. This to me is a separate issue of importance relating to property rights rather than some method of saving the planet. If people feel it's a more important cause, go ahead and believe what you will. But don't tell me this is a selfless cause to save cute fuzzy creatures and green park lands because it isn't nor is saying so likely to induce productive and practicable measures to resolve the problem.
4) This also means that most of the money involved should be placed in adaptive methods of climate change. Natural variation will occur. Local climate changes occur from year to year anyway, as anyone in the central US or California could attest. Human beings have been involved in climate adaptation for thousands of years (usually by migrating). We have 'stopped' because of our modern urban technology dependencies and stubborn settlement of a particular place rather than particular climate conditions (for instance New Orleans or San Francisco probably aren't well situated because of natural events).
5) Most of the public figures involved in promoting global warming as a social cause are involved frequently in 'do as I say, not as I do' means of self-promotion. This indicates (to me) that they are attempting to capitalize on a fear-based event, rather than put forth solutions to avert it. It is more likely because of the enormous cost (to the expense of very certain and direct issues such as abject poverty or the scourge of malaria or AIDS) and enormous uncertainty involved that they do not have solutions (or at least they don't have solutions we can all "profit" from). We should be skeptical of these proposals, as we would be with any major leader who will directly profit from our exertions (religious, political, business) unless we ourselves share in the fruits of our labors.
6) Solutions must include any means of production or energy/resource efficiency that are available. Carbon credits haven't as I see them promoted American resource efficiency, instead what has done so is significantly raising gasoline/energy prices. Recapture devices are unlikely in the near term, but they are indeed worth implementing if the environmental externalities of production are directly imposed upon the industries involved in producing them through other costs. Energy costs which involve pollution should be conceived of as higher than those which have less or none because of their externalities. The cost of coal for example is rendered in the cost of respiratory disease for humans and in the cost of negative local climate changes in the quality of air and water..measured against the cost of not producing valuable energy for a given population.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
