Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Warming Up to It?
Now that I've said a few dozen words about critical thinking, I'd like to apply them to a current hot topic. No pun intended, because I mean the "global warming" or "climate change" thing.
I posted about the topic once before, but only to say that I thought that the downside of thinking it was a problem and being wrong about that is a lot less than the downside of thinking it isn't a problem and being wrong.
The thing is, the planet has been getting warmer for several hundred years, on average. The truth is that I heard about that fact in the late sixties. The opponents of the idea would stand a better chance of convincing me that the threat is overrated if they hadn't started their argument with a two-year or more tirade about how it wasn't happening. That is simply not true. This planet is getting warmer, on average. And, as it warms, some unpleasant (seemingly) things will happen.
For instance, the ocean levels will rise. In fact, the ocean is deeper than it was fifty years ago, by maybe a foot (I think, but don't quote me on the exact amount.) In any event, this is bad for places like Venice, where they now have portable inflatable items to walk over during the ever more frequent floods. If the average temperature continues to rise, then all of the places Al Gore says will be under water will, in fact, be under water. That is all simple facts.
Now, the hyperbole comes in. The warmth of the planet is tied up with something called the carbon cycle. That is true. The carbon cycle involves carbon being locked up by plants, stored at times deep in the earth in the form of fossil fuel, and also liberated by almost all living things in the form of carbon dioxide gas, which then is used by plants to build more plants, thus locking it up again. We're still on true ground here.
Also true is the fact that we have discovered how to remove the stored carbon from the ground and liberate it as carbon dioxide in a hurry. A motorcar turns a lot of locked-up carbon into carbon dioxide all at once. The fact that more and more people all over the world are using more and more motorcars is not just driving up the cost of locked-up carbon (oil, that is,) it's also producing a lot of extra carbon dioxide. This is true to the extent that present carbon levels in the atmosphere are many times what they have been in the past several million years at least. That's still a fact, Jack.
Here's the uncritical part. In an emotional and Oscar-winning appeal, the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" puts forth the proposition that humans have so much skewed the carbon cycle that we are pretty much screwed, temperature wise. This may be true. As I wrote before, pretending that it is will generate a lot of new jobs and new sources of income as new industries develop to deal with the ramifications. But, in fact, are we screwed because of what we've done to the planet? The critical reading of the situation is, and this is from a scientist, friends, "there is insufficient data to answer that question." Or so a computer in an old, bad Sci-Fi movie might say. We really can't say for sure. That's the truth.
Now, on the other side I read about the "trillions of dollars in cost" taken from "fixed resources" that we don't have in order to basically destroy our civilization and save us from this climate change problem that either doesn't exist or that "we can't do anything about, anyway." There's more emotional baggage in that argument than in Al Gore's movie.
Money is not a "limited resource." Anyone who says it is, is selling something. Money is an abstraction of good will and nothing more. It is always possible to generate more good will. You do a favor for somebody and you generate more good will. That's why economists say that money must keep moving to be effective. Money stuffed in a mattress doesn't pass good will along. In fact, since inflation is a constant companion of any currency, the good will you stuff in the mattress will eventually, so to speak, leak out and disappear. I'm not saying not to save for emergencies, but I am saying that spending money is what keeps the good feelings circulating. That's what FDR meant by his famous line about having to fear nothing but "fear itself." He meant the fear that keeps you locked up at home and not spending money, because that fear stops the economy dead in its tracks.
So, since we can generate more money simply by doing productive things, there is no reason to fear for the "trillions" of dollars it will cost to, as the common phrase has it, "go green." The Federal budget for 2009 is about $2.6 billion US. That's trillions of dollars right there, and that's what they spend. Since even the harshest tax critic will admit that we get to keep more of our money than we give to the IRS, which means that individually Americans spend trillions of dollars a year outside of taxes! So the emotional tirade about all that money is nothing but a smoke screen for somebody who, for whatever reason, resists the idea that we could or should do something about climate change.
As for not being able to do anything about it, that's nothing. Literally. We can't do anything about the weather at all, but we manage to eliminate the worst effects. I live in a place where summers can be brutal, with daytime temperatures as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. But I am rarely uncomfortably hot. Nor am I cold during the unexpectedly chilly winters here in Southern Nevada, where it frosts almost every night for a couple of months. If you accept that the negative effects are going to happen whatever we do, then you must also accept the necessity of doing what we can to get along with the worst of the effects. Since the main thing required to overcome the negative effects of climate change are to get to work and build things, it simply requires more good will, which we have in unlimited supply. Not much of a problem.
I used this issue deliberately because of the amount of hyperbole coming from both sides. Both sides are probably wrong at least in some respects. Which doesn't matter, because we have the resources, brains and will to do whatever needs doing no matter what the climate throws at us. That's the great thing about being human. We can adapt, or adapt to, just about anything. And that's the critical truth.
I posted about the topic once before, but only to say that I thought that the downside of thinking it was a problem and being wrong about that is a lot less than the downside of thinking it isn't a problem and being wrong.
The thing is, the planet has been getting warmer for several hundred years, on average. The truth is that I heard about that fact in the late sixties. The opponents of the idea would stand a better chance of convincing me that the threat is overrated if they hadn't started their argument with a two-year or more tirade about how it wasn't happening. That is simply not true. This planet is getting warmer, on average. And, as it warms, some unpleasant (seemingly) things will happen.
For instance, the ocean levels will rise. In fact, the ocean is deeper than it was fifty years ago, by maybe a foot (I think, but don't quote me on the exact amount.) In any event, this is bad for places like Venice, where they now have portable inflatable items to walk over during the ever more frequent floods. If the average temperature continues to rise, then all of the places Al Gore says will be under water will, in fact, be under water. That is all simple facts.
Now, the hyperbole comes in. The warmth of the planet is tied up with something called the carbon cycle. That is true. The carbon cycle involves carbon being locked up by plants, stored at times deep in the earth in the form of fossil fuel, and also liberated by almost all living things in the form of carbon dioxide gas, which then is used by plants to build more plants, thus locking it up again. We're still on true ground here.
Also true is the fact that we have discovered how to remove the stored carbon from the ground and liberate it as carbon dioxide in a hurry. A motorcar turns a lot of locked-up carbon into carbon dioxide all at once. The fact that more and more people all over the world are using more and more motorcars is not just driving up the cost of locked-up carbon (oil, that is,) it's also producing a lot of extra carbon dioxide. This is true to the extent that present carbon levels in the atmosphere are many times what they have been in the past several million years at least. That's still a fact, Jack.
Here's the uncritical part. In an emotional and Oscar-winning appeal, the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" puts forth the proposition that humans have so much skewed the carbon cycle that we are pretty much screwed, temperature wise. This may be true. As I wrote before, pretending that it is will generate a lot of new jobs and new sources of income as new industries develop to deal with the ramifications. But, in fact, are we screwed because of what we've done to the planet? The critical reading of the situation is, and this is from a scientist, friends, "there is insufficient data to answer that question." Or so a computer in an old, bad Sci-Fi movie might say. We really can't say for sure. That's the truth.
Now, on the other side I read about the "trillions of dollars in cost" taken from "fixed resources" that we don't have in order to basically destroy our civilization and save us from this climate change problem that either doesn't exist or that "we can't do anything about, anyway." There's more emotional baggage in that argument than in Al Gore's movie.
Money is not a "limited resource." Anyone who says it is, is selling something. Money is an abstraction of good will and nothing more. It is always possible to generate more good will. You do a favor for somebody and you generate more good will. That's why economists say that money must keep moving to be effective. Money stuffed in a mattress doesn't pass good will along. In fact, since inflation is a constant companion of any currency, the good will you stuff in the mattress will eventually, so to speak, leak out and disappear. I'm not saying not to save for emergencies, but I am saying that spending money is what keeps the good feelings circulating. That's what FDR meant by his famous line about having to fear nothing but "fear itself." He meant the fear that keeps you locked up at home and not spending money, because that fear stops the economy dead in its tracks.
So, since we can generate more money simply by doing productive things, there is no reason to fear for the "trillions" of dollars it will cost to, as the common phrase has it, "go green." The Federal budget for 2009 is about $2.6 billion US. That's trillions of dollars right there, and that's what they spend. Since even the harshest tax critic will admit that we get to keep more of our money than we give to the IRS, which means that individually Americans spend trillions of dollars a year outside of taxes! So the emotional tirade about all that money is nothing but a smoke screen for somebody who, for whatever reason, resists the idea that we could or should do something about climate change.
As for not being able to do anything about it, that's nothing. Literally. We can't do anything about the weather at all, but we manage to eliminate the worst effects. I live in a place where summers can be brutal, with daytime temperatures as high as 120 degrees Fahrenheit. But I am rarely uncomfortably hot. Nor am I cold during the unexpectedly chilly winters here in Southern Nevada, where it frosts almost every night for a couple of months. If you accept that the negative effects are going to happen whatever we do, then you must also accept the necessity of doing what we can to get along with the worst of the effects. Since the main thing required to overcome the negative effects of climate change are to get to work and build things, it simply requires more good will, which we have in unlimited supply. Not much of a problem.
I used this issue deliberately because of the amount of hyperbole coming from both sides. Both sides are probably wrong at least in some respects. Which doesn't matter, because we have the resources, brains and will to do whatever needs doing no matter what the climate throws at us. That's the great thing about being human. We can adapt, or adapt to, just about anything. And that's the critical truth.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
I Hate to Be Critical, But . . .
Actually, maybe more of us should get critical. At least we should think critically. If you’re wondering what that means, just keep reading.
Thinking critically means asking what something means. If you think critically when you watch a news report on television, you’ll notice that they don’t say much. Then you’ll notice that what they do say is usually designed to be upsetting in some way. Then, if you’re being critical, you’ll ask why that is. I don’t have the answer to that one handy, but I’ve seen some amusingly cynical explanations in the past. If you think about it, though, you'll see that your best interest probably doesn't explain the practice.
If we’d all been thinking critically we probably would not have any troops in Iraq. True, Saddam might well still be doing his foolish thing, but maybe not. His power was slipping by degrees as it was. It isn’t that the world isn’t better off without him, but thinking critically I can’t say offhand that Iraq is better off. Some Iraqis are, for sure, but the country may not be.
The reason we probably wouldn’t be there is that a critical reading of the arguments for going in would reveal that, first, Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin hated each other. Odds are that they would never have, in their lifetimes, agreed to help each other. They were on opposite sides of a war that started in 727. Not in a 727, but in the year 727. Saddam’s terrorists worked on Iraqi expatriates, not against the United States. Ah, hindsight, huh? But my point is that critical appraisal of all the so-called arguments for going to war with Iraq would have shown the fallacies being used. Another fallacy was that Saddam had lots of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs. Critically speaking, what was wrong with letting the UN inspector take another month or two? There were, you will recall, no such weapons there.
Another instance begging a critical review is the notion that we are at “war” in Iraq. In Korea they called the obvious war a “police action.” In Iraq they are calling the obvious police action a “war.” This is excused by calling it a part of the “war on terror.” Let’s get critical again shall we?
Terror is a tactic, like carpet bombing or propaganda. We can no more wage a war on a tactic than on drugs. Drugs are simple physical substances. They don’t fight us, and they don’t force us to use them. If guns don’t kill people seems obvious to many, why isn’t the fact that drugs don’t force themselves on people equally apparent? Drugs can’t fight, because they are inanimate objects. Terror can’t fight because it is a tactic. Thought about critically, any talk of a “war” against either of these things is absurd on the face of it. Don’t like drugs? Don’t use drugs. Don’t like terror? Don’t use terror. If that sounds frightening, you’ve probably been watching too much television news without your critical thinking cap on. A terrorist is a criminal. Ted Kaczinsky is a terrorist, or would be if we let him out. Stalin and Hitler were terrorists. Osama Bin Ladin is a terrorist. We didn’t call the war against Hitler a “war on terror.” We called it a “war against Hitler,” which is what it was. Some other terrorists of the past fifty years include, among others, Son of Sam, Terry Nichols, the Abortion Clinic bombers, the guy who blew up the bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games, and many others. They are, or were, all criminals. If we want to reduce terror, we should send the cops after those guys. Hanging out in a foreign country because we can’t figure out how to leave isn’t doing much good for anyone, and certainly isn’t reducing the amount of terror in the world. But it makes good copy at six o’clock, doesn’t it?
Want a hint as to when you should be extra careful and start asking difficult questions of yourself, and of the people who are talking at you? Good. Here it is: if an explanation seems simple and easy to understand, and if it feels good to believe that the explanation is true, then the explanation is probably false.
The thing is that people who have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the rest of us, tend to use techniques that get us to stop being critical. They poke at our emotions over and over and over, with truth if it works, or with lies if need be, until we’re all upset and ready to quit thinking and start going along with them.
Please, do yourself, and me, and society, a favor when you stop letting get away with that crap, and start thinking critically.
Thinking critically means asking what something means. If you think critically when you watch a news report on television, you’ll notice that they don’t say much. Then you’ll notice that what they do say is usually designed to be upsetting in some way. Then, if you’re being critical, you’ll ask why that is. I don’t have the answer to that one handy, but I’ve seen some amusingly cynical explanations in the past. If you think about it, though, you'll see that your best interest probably doesn't explain the practice.
If we’d all been thinking critically we probably would not have any troops in Iraq. True, Saddam might well still be doing his foolish thing, but maybe not. His power was slipping by degrees as it was. It isn’t that the world isn’t better off without him, but thinking critically I can’t say offhand that Iraq is better off. Some Iraqis are, for sure, but the country may not be.
The reason we probably wouldn’t be there is that a critical reading of the arguments for going in would reveal that, first, Saddam and Osama Bin Ladin hated each other. Odds are that they would never have, in their lifetimes, agreed to help each other. They were on opposite sides of a war that started in 727. Not in a 727, but in the year 727. Saddam’s terrorists worked on Iraqi expatriates, not against the United States. Ah, hindsight, huh? But my point is that critical appraisal of all the so-called arguments for going to war with Iraq would have shown the fallacies being used. Another fallacy was that Saddam had lots of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs. Critically speaking, what was wrong with letting the UN inspector take another month or two? There were, you will recall, no such weapons there.
Another instance begging a critical review is the notion that we are at “war” in Iraq. In Korea they called the obvious war a “police action.” In Iraq they are calling the obvious police action a “war.” This is excused by calling it a part of the “war on terror.” Let’s get critical again shall we?
Terror is a tactic, like carpet bombing or propaganda. We can no more wage a war on a tactic than on drugs. Drugs are simple physical substances. They don’t fight us, and they don’t force us to use them. If guns don’t kill people seems obvious to many, why isn’t the fact that drugs don’t force themselves on people equally apparent? Drugs can’t fight, because they are inanimate objects. Terror can’t fight because it is a tactic. Thought about critically, any talk of a “war” against either of these things is absurd on the face of it. Don’t like drugs? Don’t use drugs. Don’t like terror? Don’t use terror. If that sounds frightening, you’ve probably been watching too much television news without your critical thinking cap on. A terrorist is a criminal. Ted Kaczinsky is a terrorist, or would be if we let him out. Stalin and Hitler were terrorists. Osama Bin Ladin is a terrorist. We didn’t call the war against Hitler a “war on terror.” We called it a “war against Hitler,” which is what it was. Some other terrorists of the past fifty years include, among others, Son of Sam, Terry Nichols, the Abortion Clinic bombers, the guy who blew up the bomb at the Atlanta Olympic Games, and many others. They are, or were, all criminals. If we want to reduce terror, we should send the cops after those guys. Hanging out in a foreign country because we can’t figure out how to leave isn’t doing much good for anyone, and certainly isn’t reducing the amount of terror in the world. But it makes good copy at six o’clock, doesn’t it?
Want a hint as to when you should be extra careful and start asking difficult questions of yourself, and of the people who are talking at you? Good. Here it is: if an explanation seems simple and easy to understand, and if it feels good to believe that the explanation is true, then the explanation is probably false.
The thing is that people who have only their own interests at heart, and not those of the rest of us, tend to use techniques that get us to stop being critical. They poke at our emotions over and over and over, with truth if it works, or with lies if need be, until we’re all upset and ready to quit thinking and start going along with them.
Please, do yourself, and me, and society, a favor when you stop letting get away with that crap, and start thinking critically.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Monday, March 10, 2008
Now, Hold on a Minute
One thing and another, especially the nature of the Westerners who call themselves "Libertarian" but are most likely more properly called "Paranoid," has me thinking about politics and government. In the past couple of decades, the biggest noise from the Republican camp has been about how government is the problem. Ron Reagan said something like that, although he's taken out of context by most of those who quote him. In the same speech (his inaugural address, I believe) he said that our biggest special interest group is, and I quote, "We the People." That is who wrote the constitution, you'll recall: We the People.
I mention Reagan only because he's widely misquoted. Now I'm going to quote another Republican. One of their most influential presidents. The only Republican on money, and he's on two different denominations. I'm talking about Lincoln. Remember what he said at Gettysburg? "That this government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." If you're a Republican who has been bad-mouthing government for the past thirty years you might want to go read Abe's fine words a few times before you complain again.
Abe knew that we are a democratically run country. A republic, which means that the government is the people's business. That means that, gasp, the government is, well, us. Which, ironically, does mean that the conspiracy theorists are right, after all. There is a vast conspiracy, of multiple wings (not just to the right) and many personalities. This conspiracy has interests that spread into every single corner of American life. The machinations of this conspiracy determine not only who gets elected, but what issues rise to the top of the public consciousness. These conspirators even determine who lives in what neighborhoods, and where political boundaries are drawn. Not just local boundaries, but State and even International boundaries as well. They send us to war or not, tax us or not, and have the last word in consumer confidence.
They are over three-hundred million strong. They are us.
So, please, don't blame the Liberals, or Bush, or the Religious Right, or any special group for the mess you think the country is in. Either make a meaningful suggestion, or just shut the heck up. We of the vast conspiracy will be very grateful when you do.
I mention Reagan only because he's widely misquoted. Now I'm going to quote another Republican. One of their most influential presidents. The only Republican on money, and he's on two different denominations. I'm talking about Lincoln. Remember what he said at Gettysburg? "That this government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." If you're a Republican who has been bad-mouthing government for the past thirty years you might want to go read Abe's fine words a few times before you complain again.
Abe knew that we are a democratically run country. A republic, which means that the government is the people's business. That means that, gasp, the government is, well, us. Which, ironically, does mean that the conspiracy theorists are right, after all. There is a vast conspiracy, of multiple wings (not just to the right) and many personalities. This conspiracy has interests that spread into every single corner of American life. The machinations of this conspiracy determine not only who gets elected, but what issues rise to the top of the public consciousness. These conspirators even determine who lives in what neighborhoods, and where political boundaries are drawn. Not just local boundaries, but State and even International boundaries as well. They send us to war or not, tax us or not, and have the last word in consumer confidence.
They are over three-hundred million strong. They are us.
So, please, don't blame the Liberals, or Bush, or the Religious Right, or any special group for the mess you think the country is in. Either make a meaningful suggestion, or just shut the heck up. We of the vast conspiracy will be very grateful when you do.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
So Far, In the Democratic Race
I've done okay. I waited until after this primary to weigh in again, because I was starting to think I'd missed something. However things are still, as I predicted, too close to call for the Hillary vs Obama race. Sometimes raising extra money isn't all it takes. Vermont, of all places, went big for Obama, if that makes him feel any better.
I don't know about Texas, which was a lot closer, but in Ohio Hillary pretty much swamped the opposition. To be honest, some of the people I grew up with in Ohio would probably a lot rather see Hillary than a black guy.
Don't write me about Ohio, it's a fine State, but I did grow up with some amazingly racist people and that's the truth.
If that's the case then it will behoove the Democrats to consider that effect come convention time. The convention, you'll remember, is in Denver, where I'm willing to predict right now some delegates are going to have trouble with the thin air. Especially those with respiratory problems. And so what you say? So they'll be too busy forcing air into and out of their lungs to worry about fine points, which speaks well for Hillary as well. She's the known; Barak is the unknown. When you're not feeling at your best, you go with the known.
What I'm saying is that I think Hillary is going to take it in Denver. Once again, just in case she then gets elected, some people may wish to know that Canada is North of the United States.
I wrote earlier that Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain (congratulations to him, by the way, on his nomination) but now I'm not so sure. Clinton has been positioning herself as savvy and experienced, and she demonstrated those qualities by swamping yesterday's elections. If she can keep that up, maybe she can get him as easily, or even more so.
The Republicans, for their part, had better get their act together before August. Maybe they will, in which case the Democrats have their work cut out for them. If the Republicans fail to do so, however, then I'm betting we'll have another President Clinton ("O Canada" ;-)).
Lots to come, and still a nail biter for the Democrats. I'll write more on this later.
I don't know about Texas, which was a lot closer, but in Ohio Hillary pretty much swamped the opposition. To be honest, some of the people I grew up with in Ohio would probably a lot rather see Hillary than a black guy.
Don't write me about Ohio, it's a fine State, but I did grow up with some amazingly racist people and that's the truth.
If that's the case then it will behoove the Democrats to consider that effect come convention time. The convention, you'll remember, is in Denver, where I'm willing to predict right now some delegates are going to have trouble with the thin air. Especially those with respiratory problems. And so what you say? So they'll be too busy forcing air into and out of their lungs to worry about fine points, which speaks well for Hillary as well. She's the known; Barak is the unknown. When you're not feeling at your best, you go with the known.
What I'm saying is that I think Hillary is going to take it in Denver. Once again, just in case she then gets elected, some people may wish to know that Canada is North of the United States.
I wrote earlier that Obama would have a better chance of beating McCain (congratulations to him, by the way, on his nomination) but now I'm not so sure. Clinton has been positioning herself as savvy and experienced, and she demonstrated those qualities by swamping yesterday's elections. If she can keep that up, maybe she can get him as easily, or even more so.
The Republicans, for their part, had better get their act together before August. Maybe they will, in which case the Democrats have their work cut out for them. If the Republicans fail to do so, however, then I'm betting we'll have another President Clinton ("O Canada" ;-)).
Lots to come, and still a nail biter for the Democrats. I'll write more on this later.
Labels: Politics
