Managed to find a discussion on SciAm related to our long-standing discussion over whether or not fundamental research (really, we mean physics research) merits effort and resources, particularly in a world where not everyone has an minimally acceptable, let alone fair, standard of living.
I think the author and one of the posters conflates the question of whether or not physics is a useful undertaking with whether or not physicists seek to better the world - the two are totally different questions! The former has been addressed before (and I won't do it again at this time), but the latter is, I believe, especially pernicious in the context of asking whether or not pure science is useful. Regardless of the utility of beanie babies, reality TV and earrings, we never ask whether toymakers, TV producers or jewelers enter their profession because they want to make the world a better place. People choose careers for three reasons - money, status and/or because they find the work personally fulfilling. Hardly anyone actually chooses their career out of a sense of duty or need to improve the world (I say this noting that the number of emergency response technicians and humanitarian workers make up a fairly small subsection of the workforce). Why, then, should scientists be held to that standard?
There's a few other interesting statements on that page. Ex. "The mark of a thriving civilization is how much it values curiosity and creativity for its own sake, whether it be science, art, music, literature — any of those 'impractical' 'frivolous' activities that enrich all our lives."
Discuss.
Charles
P.S. The title is a reference to the fact that someone else is discussing something that re-appears frequently in my conversations.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Why Are We Leftists?
Just something I've been thinking about recently: why are we leftists?
I can hear the protests right now - more than one three-percent-thinker doesn't consider him/herself easily characterized by an abstract stereotype like "leftist", but the truth is that we hold many opinions shared by those traditionally associated with, or self-identifying as, leftists. This is a little bit odd to me, as in terms of personality and personal values we're closer to libertarians than we'd like to admit. I imagine that we like to think of ourselves as self-reliant, creative, intelligent, educated and able to make informed and reasonable decisions about our lives, probably better than other people can do for us. These traits are also championed by libertarians, since it is through these values, and personal freedoms, that an individual can flourish.
I also don't think that the left has any kind of monopoly on sound policy. In fact, I don't think sound policy has any kind of ideology behind it. "Sound", in this case, means it works. Many political acts whose goals were morally atrocious were pretty well thought out, and fairly effective in execution. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to fall for the idea that our side is always right.
But nevertheless, in terms of abstract world view as well as moral values, we share most of them with people on the left.
Which brings me back to my question, why are we leftist? What personal experience or intellectual inspiration drove us to adopt our worldviews? And why, in the end, did we rely on those views instead of other, possibly more "objective" (or at least more clinical and less blindly emotional), means of making opinions?
I'll actually confess that I'm not sure I'm a leftist at all. While I believe in things like the greater good and well-being of a society potentially at the cost of some individual liberty, I'm also not prone to believing in egalitarianism. I actually DO belive some people are morally superior to others, and it is the value and works of these people I wish to see perpetuated by society. I also do not believe happiness should be considered an intrinsic good in a society. Surely we can come up with a better reason for existing than to make ourselves feel good? (No, to make others feel good is not a good answer - it just leads to the same question.) Perhaps that makes me a fascist. That's a scary thought.
I'm more comfortable with why I'm not a libertarian - I don't trust myself. I know I have failings, and I know I can be selfish, and short-sighted, and bigoted and discriminatory, and I know I fantasize about myself being right all the time despite the fact I most certainly am not. At the same time I have a good sense of what I am responsible for in society. This, I think, makes social democracy a good government for me. I get to vote on things I believe are good, but then others take me to task for doing the right thing. In a libertarian system, on the other hand, I'd be responsible for controlling myself, which I might not be able to do. Extrapolating this to other people in society (and I imagine people like me are not rare) suggests libertarianism in general is bad for society. How I see it, anyway.
Discuss.
I can hear the protests right now - more than one three-percent-thinker doesn't consider him/herself easily characterized by an abstract stereotype like "leftist", but the truth is that we hold many opinions shared by those traditionally associated with, or self-identifying as, leftists. This is a little bit odd to me, as in terms of personality and personal values we're closer to libertarians than we'd like to admit. I imagine that we like to think of ourselves as self-reliant, creative, intelligent, educated and able to make informed and reasonable decisions about our lives, probably better than other people can do for us. These traits are also championed by libertarians, since it is through these values, and personal freedoms, that an individual can flourish.
I also don't think that the left has any kind of monopoly on sound policy. In fact, I don't think sound policy has any kind of ideology behind it. "Sound", in this case, means it works. Many political acts whose goals were morally atrocious were pretty well thought out, and fairly effective in execution. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to fall for the idea that our side is always right.
But nevertheless, in terms of abstract world view as well as moral values, we share most of them with people on the left.
Which brings me back to my question, why are we leftist? What personal experience or intellectual inspiration drove us to adopt our worldviews? And why, in the end, did we rely on those views instead of other, possibly more "objective" (or at least more clinical and less blindly emotional), means of making opinions?
I'll actually confess that I'm not sure I'm a leftist at all. While I believe in things like the greater good and well-being of a society potentially at the cost of some individual liberty, I'm also not prone to believing in egalitarianism. I actually DO belive some people are morally superior to others, and it is the value and works of these people I wish to see perpetuated by society. I also do not believe happiness should be considered an intrinsic good in a society. Surely we can come up with a better reason for existing than to make ourselves feel good? (No, to make others feel good is not a good answer - it just leads to the same question.) Perhaps that makes me a fascist. That's a scary thought.
I'm more comfortable with why I'm not a libertarian - I don't trust myself. I know I have failings, and I know I can be selfish, and short-sighted, and bigoted and discriminatory, and I know I fantasize about myself being right all the time despite the fact I most certainly am not. At the same time I have a good sense of what I am responsible for in society. This, I think, makes social democracy a good government for me. I get to vote on things I believe are good, but then others take me to task for doing the right thing. In a libertarian system, on the other hand, I'd be responsible for controlling myself, which I might not be able to do. Extrapolating this to other people in society (and I imagine people like me are not rare) suggests libertarianism in general is bad for society. How I see it, anyway.
Discuss.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Children and Choice
A transcript of our developing e-mail conversation:
I tried to post a new topic on WTWT, but haven't figured out how (maybe I can't). But here is an article I would really like to share: Parents keep child's gender secret. I found it on Tiff's Facebook page. Thanks for sharing that!
Here is my comment on the "Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret":
I always find it hard to answer the question "how much freedom should parents give to their children". What I have not yet figured out is not only "should children choose for themselves whether they are girls/boys/others", but also, for example
- Should children choose for themselves which family they grow up in?
- Should children choose for themselves which specie they are?
- Should children choose for themselves whether they should be born?
-Bing
I tried to post a new topic on WTWT, but haven't figured out how (maybe I can't). But here is an article I would really like to share: Parents keep child's gender secret. I found it on Tiff's Facebook page. Thanks for sharing that!
Here is my comment on the "Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret":
I always find it hard to answer the question "how much freedom should parents give to their children". What I have not yet figured out is not only "should children choose for themselves whether they are girls/boys/others", but also, for example
- Should children choose for themselves which family they grow up in?
- Should children choose for themselves which specie they are?
- Should children choose for themselves whether they should be born?
-Bing
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Poetry on a bicycle
I took twigs and moss from the yard
and made a little landscape
I thought myself a Giant
with shoulders way up high above the land
looking down at the little trees and imagining soaring way above them
What does it look like from up there?
I can't even see over the counter without standing on a chair.
Now I am a giant
my shoulders high above the land
I stand up straight and the ground disappears down below
From up here the trees do look like moss in the sunlight
And all I can think of
is that I want to be down among them...
and made a little landscape
I thought myself a Giant
with shoulders way up high above the land
looking down at the little trees and imagining soaring way above them
What does it look like from up there?
I can't even see over the counter without standing on a chair.
Now I am a giant
my shoulders high above the land
I stand up straight and the ground disappears down below
From up here the trees do look like moss in the sunlight
And all I can think of
is that I want to be down among them...
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Reboot!
Only by posting again will the WTWT reboot ever get off the ground. Guys, let's post our responses and thoughts in the comments section of this article rather than over e-mail, for posterity's sake.
So we've had an election recently, which I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is fuming over. My first thought was (other than "ding, dong, the Bloc is dead!") what happened, Canada? Why did we give a scheming, autocratic, neoptism-prone tyrant, who's proven time and time and time again over the last five years that he cannot be trusted, a majority?
A friend and reader of WTWT said simply "because Canadians are stupid". I replied that it's equally possible they're ignorant, or apathetic, or right-winged idealists. Her response was "no, they're stupid".
To support my assertion that Canadians voted Harper back in with purpose and not out of imbecility, I started doing research Unfortunately, trawling the blogs and reading the news has given me very little insight over why 40% of voters supported Harper. The electoral map doesn't say too much either - electoral maps over-represent rural areas for obvious reasons, and so it's difficult to tell why some areas went blue and some orange without zooming in.
My hypotheses so far:
1. Canadians are apathetic and went for the sitting government. This seems false - apathetic people don't vote, and when they do vote they either select at random or vote for the Rhinoceros Party. This did not happen, unless lots of people had their hands slip.
2. Canadians are ignorant of Harper's deceptions. On the surface this is false - they probably know Harper hatches political schemes on a daily basis. The trouble is they think this is politics as usual. I'm worried that because the Conservatives came in after a decade of Liberal scandals (none of which, arguably, are as bad as the scandals of recent years) the Conservatives now have a free pass to do whatever they want, since people now expect corruption no matter who takes office.
3. The Liberal Party has no direction. A colleague of mine at work lambasted the Liberal party for their poorly run campaign this time around. He's a political afficianado, but even looking at the Liberal platform, and Ignatieff's performance in the debates, it's obvious the Liberals had no vision of Canada other than to replace the Harper government. On the other hand, the Conservatives had a fairly strong message going in: sound economic policy to dampen the effects of recession, a backing out of the government from social safety nets to destroy the "culture of entitlement", a strong legal and military arm, and job creation through tax reduction and incentives. The Liberal platform had no overarching ideal. What does the Liberal party stand for, other than standing up against Harper?
4. Canadians LIKE libertarian ideals. I mean, 30% of people did vote NDP, while 40% of people voted Conservative. Assuming we have no centrist party, this simply means more people prefer right-winged governments than left. It also might make sense that the Conservative have broader-than-expected appeal. I can easily describe why, in richer East Asian ridings (Richmond, for example), people voted conservative. Immigrants from China nowadays are largely middle/upper-class people (both from Hong Kong and the mainland). Their experience with government in general is that it is wholly corrupt and filled with entitlement and patronage at all levels, a simple money sink you deal with only out of legal necessity. It's little wonder that when they come here they gravitate toward parties that say they'll reduce government intrusion into their lives. They're also not big on gay marriage, and since Asians have cultures fairly compatible with North American culture, they don't care too much about minority "special needs". Could other unusual Conservative Party wins be explained similarly?
By the way, I imagine now that Harper has a majority his so-con base from the Canadian Alliance will demand that he bring gay marriage and abortion back on the table. I'm fairly sure he personally won't want to (since he's making a killing by being a socially moderate libertarian). We'll see how that plays out.
What are your thoughts? Discuss below.
So we've had an election recently, which I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is fuming over. My first thought was (other than "ding, dong, the Bloc is dead!") what happened, Canada? Why did we give a scheming, autocratic, neoptism-prone tyrant, who's proven time and time and time again over the last five years that he cannot be trusted, a majority?
A friend and reader of WTWT said simply "because Canadians are stupid". I replied that it's equally possible they're ignorant, or apathetic, or right-winged idealists. Her response was "no, they're stupid".
To support my assertion that Canadians voted Harper back in with purpose and not out of imbecility, I started doing research Unfortunately, trawling the blogs and reading the news has given me very little insight over why 40% of voters supported Harper. The electoral map doesn't say too much either - electoral maps over-represent rural areas for obvious reasons, and so it's difficult to tell why some areas went blue and some orange without zooming in.
My hypotheses so far:
1. Canadians are apathetic and went for the sitting government. This seems false - apathetic people don't vote, and when they do vote they either select at random or vote for the Rhinoceros Party. This did not happen, unless lots of people had their hands slip.
2. Canadians are ignorant of Harper's deceptions. On the surface this is false - they probably know Harper hatches political schemes on a daily basis. The trouble is they think this is politics as usual. I'm worried that because the Conservatives came in after a decade of Liberal scandals (none of which, arguably, are as bad as the scandals of recent years) the Conservatives now have a free pass to do whatever they want, since people now expect corruption no matter who takes office.
3. The Liberal Party has no direction. A colleague of mine at work lambasted the Liberal party for their poorly run campaign this time around. He's a political afficianado, but even looking at the Liberal platform, and Ignatieff's performance in the debates, it's obvious the Liberals had no vision of Canada other than to replace the Harper government. On the other hand, the Conservatives had a fairly strong message going in: sound economic policy to dampen the effects of recession, a backing out of the government from social safety nets to destroy the "culture of entitlement", a strong legal and military arm, and job creation through tax reduction and incentives. The Liberal platform had no overarching ideal. What does the Liberal party stand for, other than standing up against Harper?
4. Canadians LIKE libertarian ideals. I mean, 30% of people did vote NDP, while 40% of people voted Conservative. Assuming we have no centrist party, this simply means more people prefer right-winged governments than left. It also might make sense that the Conservative have broader-than-expected appeal. I can easily describe why, in richer East Asian ridings (Richmond, for example), people voted conservative. Immigrants from China nowadays are largely middle/upper-class people (both from Hong Kong and the mainland). Their experience with government in general is that it is wholly corrupt and filled with entitlement and patronage at all levels, a simple money sink you deal with only out of legal necessity. It's little wonder that when they come here they gravitate toward parties that say they'll reduce government intrusion into their lives. They're also not big on gay marriage, and since Asians have cultures fairly compatible with North American culture, they don't care too much about minority "special needs". Could other unusual Conservative Party wins be explained similarly?
By the way, I imagine now that Harper has a majority his so-con base from the Canadian Alliance will demand that he bring gay marriage and abortion back on the table. I'm fairly sure he personally won't want to (since he's making a killing by being a socially moderate libertarian). We'll see how that plays out.
What are your thoughts? Discuss below.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What happens when you flip “all you can eat” on its head?
After waking up from an “all you can eat sushi” induced sleep (you know the kind when you’re so full you just can’t move and fall into a strangely uncomfortable sleep), I remembered some lines from a Japanese drama I watched recently.
A famous sushi chef slaps his sushi-chef-in-training son on the cheek.
“Ouch! Why did you slap me?”
“We take only what God* gives.”
“Only what God gives?”
“That’s right. We only catch the amount of fish God gives us. A true fisherman always keeps that in mind when they go out to sea every day. It’s the job of sushi chefs like us to provide customers with just the right portion they need.”
The son looks confused.
“That customer (talking about a customer who came earlier) was already finishing up and was about to leave fully satisfied. But you got carried away after a few praises and gave her another piece of chuutoro (a kind of tuna sushi). You used the tuna’s life as a tool for self-satisfaction!”
The son starts to understand.
“Son, remember to closely observe your customers. Breathe as your customers (become one with them) and know what they want.”
How often do we think of our food that way? What if we thought not of “all you can eat” but “eat only what you need?” How often do we use the lives of living beings as a tool for self-satisfaction?
On a different note, who says you can’t learn anything from TV shows?
*God (kami sama) in Japanese is often used to refer to a larger entity not necessarily with the same meaning as in a Western context.
-- Paper Sheep
A famous sushi chef slaps his sushi-chef-in-training son on the cheek.
“Ouch! Why did you slap me?”
“We take only what God* gives.”
“Only what God gives?”
“That’s right. We only catch the amount of fish God gives us. A true fisherman always keeps that in mind when they go out to sea every day. It’s the job of sushi chefs like us to provide customers with just the right portion they need.”
The son looks confused.
“That customer (talking about a customer who came earlier) was already finishing up and was about to leave fully satisfied. But you got carried away after a few praises and gave her another piece of chuutoro (a kind of tuna sushi). You used the tuna’s life as a tool for self-satisfaction!”
The son starts to understand.
“Son, remember to closely observe your customers. Breathe as your customers (become one with them) and know what they want.”
How often do we think of our food that way? What if we thought not of “all you can eat” but “eat only what you need?” How often do we use the lives of living beings as a tool for self-satisfaction?
On a different note, who says you can’t learn anything from TV shows?
*God (kami sama) in Japanese is often used to refer to a larger entity not necessarily with the same meaning as in a Western context.
-- Paper Sheep
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
More Gwynne Dyer
This is really good:
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Of%20Pandemics%20and%20Pork.txt
"The new diseases, and new strains of old diseases to which we have no immunity, will surely come, and not just one, either. We have created the ideal environment to maximise new mutations among the diseases that kill large numbers of people, and we will pay a high price. Unless we get out of factory farming, which does not seem very likely.
"But then, pork prices in the United States dropped by one-fifth between 1970 and 2004, according to the US Department of Agriculture. That means that factory farming is saving the average American consumer $29 a year, or about $2.40 a month. What's the risk of a lethal global pandemic compared to savings like that?"
Right on, Dr. Dyer!
~Charles
http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Of%20Pandemics%20and%20Pork.txt
"The new diseases, and new strains of old diseases to which we have no immunity, will surely come, and not just one, either. We have created the ideal environment to maximise new mutations among the diseases that kill large numbers of people, and we will pay a high price. Unless we get out of factory farming, which does not seem very likely.
"But then, pork prices in the United States dropped by one-fifth between 1970 and 2004, according to the US Department of Agriculture. That means that factory farming is saving the average American consumer $29 a year, or about $2.40 a month. What's the risk of a lethal global pandemic compared to savings like that?"
Right on, Dr. Dyer!
~Charles
Monday, June 8, 2009
But What Can I Do? (Part II.)
A long, long time ago, Jacob wrote an article that tackled the question, “Is it ethical to pour money into basic science, while there are still suffering people in the world?” He divided the question into two parts: do these projects have any real merit at all, and whether or not such projects deserve the funding they receive. Jacob answered the first with an eloquent and succinct defence of basic scientific research. He saved the second for a later date. Well, after a long and fruitful conversation with Jacob, I’m going to try tackling this problem (the ideas, of course, belong to Jacob as much as they do to me).
But what is the proposition, and how should we think of it? Straightforwardly, the proposition is that the societal benefits of funding programs that alleviate suffering (foreign aid, welfare, etc.) significantly outweigh the societal benefits of basic scientific research. Therefore it is economically unadvisable to continue funding basic scientific research so long as so much suffering remains in the world. For the purposes of clarification, basic research is trying to understand the fundamental aspects governing some kind of natural system, such as determining the workings of DNA or finding a way of mathematically uniting the four fundamental forces of the universe. What makes basic research “basic”, and what makes it appear superficially useless, is the fact that there is never a practical goal attached to the research. Jacob showed in Part 1 that this is uselessness is only superficial: basic research is the foundation on which all technology arises. For anyone who believes that a technical civilization (that is, any civilization that uses tools beyond sticks and rocks) is a good thing, basic research is not a luxury. It should be obvious that the proposition cannot at all be easily proven.
This is not to say that it cannot be proven, and that the proposition isn’t compelling. When we see images of the poor and the starving, people left to fend for themselves against disease, starvation and the wrath of warlords, it certainly is tempting to reroute money away from enormous experiments meant to probe things most people don’t even care to understand. It doesn’t help that so many grants lead to dead ends, and so many space probes crash. I can understand the sentiment behind the proposition, but this is an overly simplistic way of thinking about the situation. Economics isn’t like shopping at the mall: you don’t walk in with a wallet full of cash, and buy what you want.
In a mall, you can pay $4.99 to buy yourself lunch. You can pay another $4.99 to buy a lunch for your friend, and for a few dollars extra, you can buy ice cream too. You know what you’re paying for; it’s advertised on the poster, and the price tag is right below. But investing $1 million in scientific research doesn’t guarantee you a million-dollar discovery, and neither does giving $1 million to foreign aid or health care guarantee that you feed a million starving people or cut hospital waiting lines by ten percent. The economy is a complex system, and changing any variable can have a great number of far-reaching consequences. Imagine instead, going to a shopping mall and ordering a sandwich, and being charged $4.99. Then you ask for a sandwich for your friend, and the price for hers drops to $4.50. Then you ask for ice cream, and you’re charged $15, then $30, then $150, and finally all they tell you is “we’re out of ice cream; come back next week.” That’s perhaps a more appropriate analogy.
To look at our proposition in the simplistically abstract way of “every dollar not spent on research could be one spent on helping people” is not doing the problem justice. It is more appropriate to ask whether or not we are spending too much on research, and not enough on alleviating suffering, right now. We can show that there are benefits from basic research, and there are clearly benefits from foreign aid too. But while it might not be obvious, there are also diminishing returns the more one invests in each pursuit.
To begin, let us consider several pertinent facts. It suffices to say that if you’re doing pure research, especially in fields like cosmology, the direct benefits to your work won’t come for a while. I will also wholeheartedly agree that in a pure economic sense basic research has a diminishing returns problem, and we rightly have more doctors and teachers than we do theoretical physicists. Neither fact supports any suggestion that we should reduce basic research spending, since we do have more doctors and teachers than physicists, and it isn’t at all obvious that short-term benefits are better than long-term ones.
There are also indirect benefits, the values of which cannot easily be quantified and all of which may increase or decrease with increased funding. Large projects can help industrialize countries. A while back I was speaking to my supervisor at MOST (Canada’s space telescope!) who mentioned that South Africa was looking to become the site for the next massive radio telescope network. He mentioned that one of the factors the (international) project overseers were considering is how this will boost South Africa’s advanced technical expertise and industry. Now obviously not all large projects are (or even could be) built in developing countries, and the country already needs to be substantially industrialized. For these countries, however, large projects are proving grounds and a source of income for local engineers and scientists, and can bolster the technical economy of a country reaching full industrialization. At the very least, such projects serve to create jobs for the technically and scientifically minded in industrialized countries.
Basic science labs can create procedures and methods, and not just information and theories, to inspire applied scientists. Someone trying to create perfectly produced lenses for the Hubble Space Telescope may come up with a method that one day creates precision lasers for communications and surgery. Building the LHC’s electromagnets could teach us lessons that one day make nuclear fusion commercially viable. It is, of course, absolutely true that applied labs will also make such innovations. The problem is that, just like Jacob said before, applied scientists do not get paid to explore, and solve hard problems just so that they can be solved. What looks like spending money on things so that people can “play” is an irreplaceable fountain of knowledge. This, by the way, applies to theory as well as experimentation, since mathematics is used so often (although not by so many people) outside of research.
And let us not forget that scientists aren’t huddled in dark caves, only communicating to the outside world through Nature or Physics Review Letters. They’re also educators, and (ought to be) bastions against the irrationality, superstition and bad empiricism that permeates so many societies today.
If anyone’s worried about the efficiency of science, it isn’t like the International Space Station was created so that we could learn if astronauts could tie their shoes in space. Big projects like the Large Hadron Collider get billions in funding because of the promise of big discoveries that could spark revolutions in the pure sciences. Of course, things (like the ISS for example) do not always turn out the way they should, and grants can certainly be politicized, but human error permeates every facet of society, and it isn’t a problem endemic only to the scientific community. (IR students can probably cite a few “large development projects” in African countries that only benefitted the rulers of said countries, and don’t get me started about the Iraqi Reconstruction Project.)
Lastly, it isn’t obvious that putting more money into health care, or development, will help as much as we’d like. Will giving an extra billion to Africa improve living conditions as much as the previous billion? Or will it even make things worse, by fostering dependency and reducing the accountability of local governments to their citizens? Will giving more money to health care make the system more efficient? More money is usually not worse, but sometimes it can indeed be.
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argues that foreign aid can indeed cause significant harm, despite good intentions. She notes in particular that “the most fundamental problem is that it allows African governments to abdicate their role. In most of the world, health care, education and infrastructure are provided by government. But in Africa it's provided by aid agencies. African governments today depend on foreign aid for 70 per cent of their budgets. So there's no accountability to the people. Even if governments don't do their job, they can stay in power because they are underwritten by the donor community.”
Many economists would disagree, arguing that Africa is in a unique situation, being faced not only with extreme poverty but also facing epidemic HIV/AIDS and direct consequences of climate change. No doubt the challenges faced by industrialized countries seem trivial compared to the magnitude of those faced by African countries. And there is therefore no doubt that substantial assistance might be necessary and highly beneficial. But Moyo’s arguments have merit, and it seems likely that there can be such a thing as “too much aid”. I am not sure if we have reached the point where an extra dollar does more harm than good, but its existence is likely and should be accounted for.
Both aid and research are in principle justifiable places to devote resources. Now we have to see which one is better, but this is very, very, very hard! What we’re basically faced with now is the gargantuan challenge of comparing two incredibly complicated uber-multivariable cost-benefit curves. There is a point in both research and aids endeavours at which an extra dollar would be desperately needed, and points where one more dollar yields no more benefits.
To make a quantitative measurement of the worth of a research project, we not only have to determine the probability that it will obtain useful results, and determine the worth of such results, we also have to quantify all the additional benefits I have listed above, and figure out a way to give them a value. And then we have to do the same assessment on development and aid agencies, in a way that lets us compare the two. Given the facts on the ground, it is difficult for me to see how anyone could mount a simple, reason-based argument for taking money from pure science and putting it in health care or African development. To argue for change, we must have a convincing argument for a better arrangement than what we have now, and I fail to see one. Accurately determining which is better is a question that is extremely difficult to solve, even with data and expertise, but we cannot give in to intuitions and glib conceptions of the problem to ease the burden of this task, lest we begin to oversimplify.
But wait – there’s another way out! The original question also artificially narrows the scope of the debate in unfortunate ways. The world in no way keeps humanitarian and pure science funding in the same pool, dividing it up as it sees fair. Money can come from a million other places. How about, for example, Beanie Babies? It’s a 6 billion dollar industry (not per year, of course, but 6 billion over less than ten years is still a lot for a single brand of toys). To compare, NASA’s annual budget is 17 billion, and USAID gets more than 27 billion per year. Let us do this systematically. If we compared Beanie Babies to African development, I think anyone who says NASA should be disbanded to help Africa would say Africa is preferable to Beanie Babies. Now compare Beanie Babies to NASA. Shouldn’t we, if we had the choice, pull money out of Beanie Babies first?
Beanie Babies inspire and bring joy to millions every year? So does astronomy (in fact, probably to the chagrin of most scientists in other fields, astronomers and astronauts capture people’s imagination more than any other science). Beanie Babies offer an avenue of creativity and learning? So does astronomy. It seems likely that more children will borrow an astronomy book from the library than will own a Beanie Baby. In addition, NASA makes real scientific discoveries that affect both the pure sciences and more practical pursuits like climatology and meteorology.
We have spent some time discussing how basic research can benefit humanity, but humanitarian missions can certainly also benefit basic research. How could we know if one of the children we saved through humanitarian relief won’t one day become the next Einstein? The answer is simple: we don’t. This falls back to the either-or problem from the last paragraph. Why can’t we do both at the same time? If we are in agreement that both pure science and humanitarian relief is more important than Beanie Babies, why can’t we give Beanie Babies the axe?
There is, of course, the question of whether or not you should help the world more by becoming a basic science researcher. Obviously, if you’re not that great at research, your talents should go elsewhere. Obviously, if you hate research, your talents should go elsewhere. If you’re good at basic scientific research, and you love what you do, then your contributions could make little or much difference in the world, and it is extraordinarily difficult to tell which it will be. Maybe you will become the next Thomson, or Watson, or Crick. Maybe you won’t, and your work will help the next Thomson, Watson or Crick realize a scientific revolution. Maybe you’ll hit a dead end, and prevent future geniuses from ever going down the route you did and waste their precious time. Maybe your work will be forgotten. I suppose if you want to help humanity in the short run, you probably should not go into certain fields (such as astronomy) whose discoveries are likely (of course, not certain) to have long and not short-term benefits. Otherwise, choosing your passion, and choosing what you excel at, are probably the only things you can do, and the only things you should be doing.
So yeah, I didn’t answer the question, I just made it way harder to answer. But I think that’s progress. If someone is willing to volunteer their time toward the monumental goal of auditing government spending and performing a massive utilitarian calculation, I’d be happy (and impressed!) to read the results. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be lulled into thinking that the problem is simple, obvious, and can even be resolved in a debate or conversation. There are too many benefits to basic research, and so many complications in funding, for us to judge without more information.
~Charles
With much thanks to Jacob for both the conversation and editing this piece.
P.S. (Because I don’t think this is a good argument so much as just something I want to ask.)
It is quite obvious that the people who challenge basic research because it prevents the alleviation of suffering value the alleviation of suffering more than the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. The above argument tackles the accusations using practical reasoning, but I now want to pose a question to satisfy the sadistic relativist side of my brain. Why should we believe this? The immediate answer may be that a life (not in the sense of biological life, but experience, essentially) is inherently good (i.e. good because it is). Why should we believe this? That is not an obvious question, and may be unanswerable on moral or rational grounds alone. So, then, why might you believe that? And if I were to say that I believe the “advancement of civilization” (whatever that means) is an intrinsic good more important than (the intrinsic good of) a single life, or two, or ten, what would you say to convince me otherwise?
But what is the proposition, and how should we think of it? Straightforwardly, the proposition is that the societal benefits of funding programs that alleviate suffering (foreign aid, welfare, etc.) significantly outweigh the societal benefits of basic scientific research. Therefore it is economically unadvisable to continue funding basic scientific research so long as so much suffering remains in the world. For the purposes of clarification, basic research is trying to understand the fundamental aspects governing some kind of natural system, such as determining the workings of DNA or finding a way of mathematically uniting the four fundamental forces of the universe. What makes basic research “basic”, and what makes it appear superficially useless, is the fact that there is never a practical goal attached to the research. Jacob showed in Part 1 that this is uselessness is only superficial: basic research is the foundation on which all technology arises. For anyone who believes that a technical civilization (that is, any civilization that uses tools beyond sticks and rocks) is a good thing, basic research is not a luxury. It should be obvious that the proposition cannot at all be easily proven.
This is not to say that it cannot be proven, and that the proposition isn’t compelling. When we see images of the poor and the starving, people left to fend for themselves against disease, starvation and the wrath of warlords, it certainly is tempting to reroute money away from enormous experiments meant to probe things most people don’t even care to understand. It doesn’t help that so many grants lead to dead ends, and so many space probes crash. I can understand the sentiment behind the proposition, but this is an overly simplistic way of thinking about the situation. Economics isn’t like shopping at the mall: you don’t walk in with a wallet full of cash, and buy what you want.
In a mall, you can pay $4.99 to buy yourself lunch. You can pay another $4.99 to buy a lunch for your friend, and for a few dollars extra, you can buy ice cream too. You know what you’re paying for; it’s advertised on the poster, and the price tag is right below. But investing $1 million in scientific research doesn’t guarantee you a million-dollar discovery, and neither does giving $1 million to foreign aid or health care guarantee that you feed a million starving people or cut hospital waiting lines by ten percent. The economy is a complex system, and changing any variable can have a great number of far-reaching consequences. Imagine instead, going to a shopping mall and ordering a sandwich, and being charged $4.99. Then you ask for a sandwich for your friend, and the price for hers drops to $4.50. Then you ask for ice cream, and you’re charged $15, then $30, then $150, and finally all they tell you is “we’re out of ice cream; come back next week.” That’s perhaps a more appropriate analogy.
To look at our proposition in the simplistically abstract way of “every dollar not spent on research could be one spent on helping people” is not doing the problem justice. It is more appropriate to ask whether or not we are spending too much on research, and not enough on alleviating suffering, right now. We can show that there are benefits from basic research, and there are clearly benefits from foreign aid too. But while it might not be obvious, there are also diminishing returns the more one invests in each pursuit.
To begin, let us consider several pertinent facts. It suffices to say that if you’re doing pure research, especially in fields like cosmology, the direct benefits to your work won’t come for a while. I will also wholeheartedly agree that in a pure economic sense basic research has a diminishing returns problem, and we rightly have more doctors and teachers than we do theoretical physicists. Neither fact supports any suggestion that we should reduce basic research spending, since we do have more doctors and teachers than physicists, and it isn’t at all obvious that short-term benefits are better than long-term ones.
There are also indirect benefits, the values of which cannot easily be quantified and all of which may increase or decrease with increased funding. Large projects can help industrialize countries. A while back I was speaking to my supervisor at MOST (Canada’s space telescope!) who mentioned that South Africa was looking to become the site for the next massive radio telescope network. He mentioned that one of the factors the (international) project overseers were considering is how this will boost South Africa’s advanced technical expertise and industry. Now obviously not all large projects are (or even could be) built in developing countries, and the country already needs to be substantially industrialized. For these countries, however, large projects are proving grounds and a source of income for local engineers and scientists, and can bolster the technical economy of a country reaching full industrialization. At the very least, such projects serve to create jobs for the technically and scientifically minded in industrialized countries.
Basic science labs can create procedures and methods, and not just information and theories, to inspire applied scientists. Someone trying to create perfectly produced lenses for the Hubble Space Telescope may come up with a method that one day creates precision lasers for communications and surgery. Building the LHC’s electromagnets could teach us lessons that one day make nuclear fusion commercially viable. It is, of course, absolutely true that applied labs will also make such innovations. The problem is that, just like Jacob said before, applied scientists do not get paid to explore, and solve hard problems just so that they can be solved. What looks like spending money on things so that people can “play” is an irreplaceable fountain of knowledge. This, by the way, applies to theory as well as experimentation, since mathematics is used so often (although not by so many people) outside of research.
And let us not forget that scientists aren’t huddled in dark caves, only communicating to the outside world through Nature or Physics Review Letters. They’re also educators, and (ought to be) bastions against the irrationality, superstition and bad empiricism that permeates so many societies today.
If anyone’s worried about the efficiency of science, it isn’t like the International Space Station was created so that we could learn if astronauts could tie their shoes in space. Big projects like the Large Hadron Collider get billions in funding because of the promise of big discoveries that could spark revolutions in the pure sciences. Of course, things (like the ISS for example) do not always turn out the way they should, and grants can certainly be politicized, but human error permeates every facet of society, and it isn’t a problem endemic only to the scientific community. (IR students can probably cite a few “large development projects” in African countries that only benefitted the rulers of said countries, and don’t get me started about the Iraqi Reconstruction Project.)
Lastly, it isn’t obvious that putting more money into health care, or development, will help as much as we’d like. Will giving an extra billion to Africa improve living conditions as much as the previous billion? Or will it even make things worse, by fostering dependency and reducing the accountability of local governments to their citizens? Will giving more money to health care make the system more efficient? More money is usually not worse, but sometimes it can indeed be.
In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argues that foreign aid can indeed cause significant harm, despite good intentions. She notes in particular that “the most fundamental problem is that it allows African governments to abdicate their role. In most of the world, health care, education and infrastructure are provided by government. But in Africa it's provided by aid agencies. African governments today depend on foreign aid for 70 per cent of their budgets. So there's no accountability to the people. Even if governments don't do their job, they can stay in power because they are underwritten by the donor community.”
Many economists would disagree, arguing that Africa is in a unique situation, being faced not only with extreme poverty but also facing epidemic HIV/AIDS and direct consequences of climate change. No doubt the challenges faced by industrialized countries seem trivial compared to the magnitude of those faced by African countries. And there is therefore no doubt that substantial assistance might be necessary and highly beneficial. But Moyo’s arguments have merit, and it seems likely that there can be such a thing as “too much aid”. I am not sure if we have reached the point where an extra dollar does more harm than good, but its existence is likely and should be accounted for.
Both aid and research are in principle justifiable places to devote resources. Now we have to see which one is better, but this is very, very, very hard! What we’re basically faced with now is the gargantuan challenge of comparing two incredibly complicated uber-multivariable cost-benefit curves. There is a point in both research and aids endeavours at which an extra dollar would be desperately needed, and points where one more dollar yields no more benefits.
To make a quantitative measurement of the worth of a research project, we not only have to determine the probability that it will obtain useful results, and determine the worth of such results, we also have to quantify all the additional benefits I have listed above, and figure out a way to give them a value. And then we have to do the same assessment on development and aid agencies, in a way that lets us compare the two. Given the facts on the ground, it is difficult for me to see how anyone could mount a simple, reason-based argument for taking money from pure science and putting it in health care or African development. To argue for change, we must have a convincing argument for a better arrangement than what we have now, and I fail to see one. Accurately determining which is better is a question that is extremely difficult to solve, even with data and expertise, but we cannot give in to intuitions and glib conceptions of the problem to ease the burden of this task, lest we begin to oversimplify.
But wait – there’s another way out! The original question also artificially narrows the scope of the debate in unfortunate ways. The world in no way keeps humanitarian and pure science funding in the same pool, dividing it up as it sees fair. Money can come from a million other places. How about, for example, Beanie Babies? It’s a 6 billion dollar industry (not per year, of course, but 6 billion over less than ten years is still a lot for a single brand of toys). To compare, NASA’s annual budget is 17 billion, and USAID gets more than 27 billion per year. Let us do this systematically. If we compared Beanie Babies to African development, I think anyone who says NASA should be disbanded to help Africa would say Africa is preferable to Beanie Babies. Now compare Beanie Babies to NASA. Shouldn’t we, if we had the choice, pull money out of Beanie Babies first?
Beanie Babies inspire and bring joy to millions every year? So does astronomy (in fact, probably to the chagrin of most scientists in other fields, astronomers and astronauts capture people’s imagination more than any other science). Beanie Babies offer an avenue of creativity and learning? So does astronomy. It seems likely that more children will borrow an astronomy book from the library than will own a Beanie Baby. In addition, NASA makes real scientific discoveries that affect both the pure sciences and more practical pursuits like climatology and meteorology.
We have spent some time discussing how basic research can benefit humanity, but humanitarian missions can certainly also benefit basic research. How could we know if one of the children we saved through humanitarian relief won’t one day become the next Einstein? The answer is simple: we don’t. This falls back to the either-or problem from the last paragraph. Why can’t we do both at the same time? If we are in agreement that both pure science and humanitarian relief is more important than Beanie Babies, why can’t we give Beanie Babies the axe?
There is, of course, the question of whether or not you should help the world more by becoming a basic science researcher. Obviously, if you’re not that great at research, your talents should go elsewhere. Obviously, if you hate research, your talents should go elsewhere. If you’re good at basic scientific research, and you love what you do, then your contributions could make little or much difference in the world, and it is extraordinarily difficult to tell which it will be. Maybe you will become the next Thomson, or Watson, or Crick. Maybe you won’t, and your work will help the next Thomson, Watson or Crick realize a scientific revolution. Maybe you’ll hit a dead end, and prevent future geniuses from ever going down the route you did and waste their precious time. Maybe your work will be forgotten. I suppose if you want to help humanity in the short run, you probably should not go into certain fields (such as astronomy) whose discoveries are likely (of course, not certain) to have long and not short-term benefits. Otherwise, choosing your passion, and choosing what you excel at, are probably the only things you can do, and the only things you should be doing.
So yeah, I didn’t answer the question, I just made it way harder to answer. But I think that’s progress. If someone is willing to volunteer their time toward the monumental goal of auditing government spending and performing a massive utilitarian calculation, I’d be happy (and impressed!) to read the results. In the meantime, we shouldn’t be lulled into thinking that the problem is simple, obvious, and can even be resolved in a debate or conversation. There are too many benefits to basic research, and so many complications in funding, for us to judge without more information.
~Charles
With much thanks to Jacob for both the conversation and editing this piece.
P.S. (Because I don’t think this is a good argument so much as just something I want to ask.)
It is quite obvious that the people who challenge basic research because it prevents the alleviation of suffering value the alleviation of suffering more than the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. The above argument tackles the accusations using practical reasoning, but I now want to pose a question to satisfy the sadistic relativist side of my brain. Why should we believe this? The immediate answer may be that a life (not in the sense of biological life, but experience, essentially) is inherently good (i.e. good because it is). Why should we believe this? That is not an obvious question, and may be unanswerable on moral or rational grounds alone. So, then, why might you believe that? And if I were to say that I believe the “advancement of civilization” (whatever that means) is an intrinsic good more important than (the intrinsic good of) a single life, or two, or ten, what would you say to convince me otherwise?
Saturday, May 30, 2009
On Debating Religion (Or Anything Else)
I’ve recently been frequenting the Scientific American website forums (http://www.scientificamerican.com/). Surprisingly (or, rather, unsurprisingly), it’s a den of climate-change deniers, evangelicals, and people who generally disagree with the tone of whatever editor has written an op-ed in this month’s issue. (Let us leave aside the inevitable rant about how forums likely created for people to discuss scientific endeavours leads to discussions on metaphysics and cultural and political conflict.) After several hours of going through page after exasperating page of debate over the nature of God, or something, I decided to write down this list, which I hope will assuage, or at least ameliorate (forgive my arcane language; I’m studying for the GREs) debates of this sort.
1. Understand the purpose of your debate. If it is to convince others, gear your argument toward doing so. In this case, it is your job to convince others of your position, not their job to try to understand yours.
If you post on forums so that you can vent your exasperation, or declare your superiority, please, for the sake of all things morally good, do that on a site that supports your political, gender or religious preferences. In the end, everyone will be happier, and no one will be offended. Once you’ve calmed down and want to try convincing some contrarians, then go back to a neutral website.
My belief is that many people actually want to talk about issues, rather than hurling insults at each other in order to stimulate the pleasure centres of their brains. Call me an idealist...
2. So, you feel up to a debate, then? Okay, here are a few more ground rules. Do not state how sure you are of your opinion, or how righteous you feel, or how immune you are to counterarguments. No one wants to hear about you, they want to hear about your opinions and the reasons you hold them (and not that you’re absolutely convinced by them). If you want to talk about your experiences, start a blog.
3. Do not start, rebuttal, or end an argument by calling anyone (not just the other people on the forum) stupid. This may be obvious, but there are many, many ways to do this. “How can people possibly believe?” is an obvious one, but so is “isn’t this obvious?”. Again, you are trying to convince others. The onus is on you to perform well, not for them to listen to you. You are nobody until you prove you are somebody.
4. Type in coherent sentences, and use formatting! It is your job to make your argument understandable, not theirs. No, making your argument harder to read will not make it more convincing. This isn’t the fine print on cellphone contracts. I understand that some people may not have English as their first language, and others are computer illiterate. Do the best you can (you might want to apologize if it appears people aren’t getting what you wrote). Native speakers under the age of 25 have no excuse not to capitalize (NO, NOT ALL CAPS) or use periods.
That being said, please do not go after someone because they've mispelled a word. Maybe call them for not capitalizing, but one word? Come on, no one's perfect!
5. Cite evidence, and help others to understand what you’ve presented. Remember, your victory is when the other side concedes the moral, intellectual or philosophical superiority of your position and agrees with you, not when they call you a moron or swear to kill your firstborn. Obviously evidence will be necessary to convince others. But “look it up yourself” when they ask for clarification is not conducive to your victory.
6. Read what others have written carefully, even if it is obviously garbage. To go for four rounds of “but you didn’t answer my point” is fairly pointless, and happens far too often. If you can’t understand what the other person is talking about, ask for clarification on the assumption that you are the one being stupid, not him/her.
7. Respect the fact that they believe, even (especially) if you don’t respect their beliefs. (I’m looking at you, Richard Dawkins!) Yes, God may be a bunch of baloney written onto some books by deluded priests (but very good public speakers, I’m sure) a few centuries ago, but it doesn’t change the fact that the theist you’re debating loves God, and believes God has had a huge part in his/her life. It may actually be true that the person is a better person because of his/her misguided beliefs, and this ought to be addressed from the start. Do you really think calling their raison d’être delusional from the get go (or, alternatively, calling them closed-minded and irrational) will wake them up?
It doesn’t have to be God. Even dealing with racists may work this way. Start by acknowledging that the culture or people the racist cites has done whatever good works s/he adores.
8. Do not exit from a debate by stating how your opposition is too dense to understand your arguments. See #3 above. Chances are you’ll want to return because something else offends you. You might want a good rep so that you’ll convince a few people.
The general trend toward almost all these points is to exude an air of humility when attempting to convince people. I mean, Socrates the legendary debater never bothered to shout (as far as I can remember) “Ah HAH! I win!” when he won, and he never called (or thought) his interlocutor was an idiot. I mean, after all, if s/he’s an idiot, why in the WORLD are you talking to him/her about ANYTHING, other than to excite the pleasure centres of your brain by hurling insults at others?
~Charles
P.S. Okay, I see one reason, which is that something s/he’s doing is hurting you, but even then is it really productive to scream at them? If not, please read #1 again.
1. Understand the purpose of your debate. If it is to convince others, gear your argument toward doing so. In this case, it is your job to convince others of your position, not their job to try to understand yours.
If you post on forums so that you can vent your exasperation, or declare your superiority, please, for the sake of all things morally good, do that on a site that supports your political, gender or religious preferences. In the end, everyone will be happier, and no one will be offended. Once you’ve calmed down and want to try convincing some contrarians, then go back to a neutral website.
My belief is that many people actually want to talk about issues, rather than hurling insults at each other in order to stimulate the pleasure centres of their brains. Call me an idealist...
2. So, you feel up to a debate, then? Okay, here are a few more ground rules. Do not state how sure you are of your opinion, or how righteous you feel, or how immune you are to counterarguments. No one wants to hear about you, they want to hear about your opinions and the reasons you hold them (and not that you’re absolutely convinced by them). If you want to talk about your experiences, start a blog.
3. Do not start, rebuttal, or end an argument by calling anyone (not just the other people on the forum) stupid. This may be obvious, but there are many, many ways to do this. “How can people possibly believe
4. Type in coherent sentences, and use formatting! It is your job to make your argument understandable, not theirs. No, making your argument harder to read will not make it more convincing. This isn’t the fine print on cellphone contracts. I understand that some people may not have English as their first language, and others are computer illiterate. Do the best you can (you might want to apologize if it appears people aren’t getting what you wrote). Native speakers under the age of 25 have no excuse not to capitalize (NO, NOT ALL CAPS) or use periods.
That being said, please do not go after someone because they've mispelled a word. Maybe call them for not capitalizing, but one word? Come on, no one's perfect!
5. Cite evidence, and help others to understand what you’ve presented. Remember, your victory is when the other side concedes the moral, intellectual or philosophical superiority of your position and agrees with you, not when they call you a moron or swear to kill your firstborn. Obviously evidence will be necessary to convince others. But “look it up yourself” when they ask for clarification is not conducive to your victory.
6. Read what others have written carefully, even if it is obviously garbage. To go for four rounds of “but you didn’t answer my point” is fairly pointless, and happens far too often. If you can’t understand what the other person is talking about, ask for clarification on the assumption that you are the one being stupid, not him/her.
7. Respect the fact that they believe, even (especially) if you don’t respect their beliefs. (I’m looking at you, Richard Dawkins!) Yes, God may be a bunch of baloney written onto some books by deluded priests (but very good public speakers, I’m sure) a few centuries ago, but it doesn’t change the fact that the theist you’re debating loves God, and believes God has had a huge part in his/her life. It may actually be true that the person is a better person because of his/her misguided beliefs, and this ought to be addressed from the start. Do you really think calling their raison d’être delusional from the get go (or, alternatively, calling them closed-minded and irrational) will wake them up?
It doesn’t have to be God. Even dealing with racists may work this way. Start by acknowledging that the culture or people the racist cites has done whatever good works s/he adores.
8. Do not exit from a debate by stating how your opposition is too dense to understand your arguments. See #3 above. Chances are you’ll want to return because something else offends you. You might want a good rep so that you’ll convince a few people.
The general trend toward almost all these points is to exude an air of humility when attempting to convince people. I mean, Socrates the legendary debater never bothered to shout (as far as I can remember) “Ah HAH! I win!” when he won, and he never called (or thought) his interlocutor was an idiot. I mean, after all, if s/he’s an idiot, why in the WORLD are you talking to him/her about ANYTHING, other than to excite the pleasure centres of your brain by hurling insults at others?
~Charles
P.S. Okay, I see one reason, which is that something s/he’s doing is hurting you, but even then is it really productive to scream at them? If not, please read #1 again.
Friday, December 26, 2008
Tea + Shooting + Second Life
Three events recently came together to give an idea.
I was reading Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time . It's an incredible story about an American, who against all odds, managed to build over 60 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The events and barriers he had to overcome could seriously be made into a thriller movie. For example, imagine being detained by a community that is known to be violent and not know any of the language. Later on, two fatwahs were issued to get him out of Pakistan!
The other thing is, I watched my friend play a first person shooter game for the first time in my life. I have to admit, it was pretty exciting. Although I got lost in all the jargon regarding gun swapping, it was entertaining to watch. Now I finally understand a bit more why some people are addicted.
The last thing is my friend showed me a video about Second Life on TED. I knew about second life, but it made me rethink about how it could be used.
So..what if these stories of real heroes like Greg in Three Cups of Tea could be made into video games or Second Life characters so that other people can get to know them in a more fun and interactive medium? I love reading books, but not all my friends do. Why not turn these amazing stories into as many mediums as possible so that it can spread? It took two years to write the book...I'm sure it would take just about the same time to make it into a video game.
P.S. did you know over 300 universities world wide are using Second Life as their platform for distance education courses? (source: wikipedia)
I was reading Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace . . . One School at a Time . It's an incredible story about an American, who against all odds, managed to build over 60 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The events and barriers he had to overcome could seriously be made into a thriller movie. For example, imagine being detained by a community that is known to be violent and not know any of the language. Later on, two fatwahs were issued to get him out of Pakistan!
The other thing is, I watched my friend play a first person shooter game for the first time in my life. I have to admit, it was pretty exciting. Although I got lost in all the jargon regarding gun swapping, it was entertaining to watch. Now I finally understand a bit more why some people are addicted.
The last thing is my friend showed me a video about Second Life on TED. I knew about second life, but it made me rethink about how it could be used.
So..what if these stories of real heroes like Greg in Three Cups of Tea could be made into video games or Second Life characters so that other people can get to know them in a more fun and interactive medium? I love reading books, but not all my friends do. Why not turn these amazing stories into as many mediums as possible so that it can spread? It took two years to write the book...I'm sure it would take just about the same time to make it into a video game.
P.S. did you know over 300 universities world wide are using Second Life as their platform for distance education courses? (source: wikipedia)
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Environmentalism as Politics
A few years back, I was really, really pissed off at Michael Crichton. The pissery was in response to his speech, “Environmentalism as Religion”, given to the Commonwealth Club of California (link: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html). In it, Crichton describes the modern environmental movement and scientific community as being based on faith and ideological fundamentalism, with elements of Christian redemption theory and eschatology. He believed it was time to reform the scientific community and corresponding movement so that scientific rigour, not ideology or politics, became the movement’s driving force. Suffice it to say that Crichton was a climate-change sceptic: his book, State of Fear, presented an extensively researched collection of evidence that countered (or tried to, at least) the prevailing notion that climate change is a clear and present danger to humanity.
Now, of course, I flew right into Crichton’s trap. My first reaction, righteous indignation, is exactly what an “environmental fundamentalist” would do, and any group that reacted to Crichton’s speech in a similar manner would just as much be inadvertently proving his point. The only good rebuttal is one that wields evidence. Scientists went after State of Fear for the representation of its data (http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm is an example, ignoring the political comments at the end). This is a science debate, and Crichton was absolutely right in saying that hard science, not politics, or ideology, or personal belief, should shape debate. The only arguments he makes that I would contend with are on the mindset of the climate science community and the validity of climate data.
But this isn’t a blog post about Crichton. (It isn’t?) This is a blog post about the politicization of science. Recently, Senator James Inhofe’s Environment and Public Works press blog had an article entitled “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”, and subtitled “Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'”. (Access the article at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6&Issue_id= .) When I read this, I immediately started to feel that righteous indignation boiling up again, but I calmed myself down, lest I fall into Crichton’s trap again.
As it turns out, the study, published in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL&sortBy=author), does not say that! Quoting from the abstract: “The strong correlation
between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main
driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region.” Furthermore, “Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850-2000 in the Altai region”. On the fifty percent quip, “Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.” And note, this article is a study on one region in south-central Russia. There are two possible explanations for happened here: either one of Inhofe’s staff (or he himself) only read the last part of the last sentence of the conclusion (and you’re supposed to read the abstract!), or, for whatever reason, they cherry-picked phrases.
This is, purely and simply, a blatant misrepresentation of a legitimate scientific study. Add in the sensationalist headlines, and you have exactly what Crichton warned against: the politicization of science, and the corruption to public understanding it brings. Public understanding of climate change cannot be guided by U.S. senators or by ex-vice presidents or rock stars: they need to be dictated by the presentation of hard data and good interpretation. The senate minority report attached to the blog post is a list of (apparent; for all I know they could be misquoted) climate sceptics and their credentials. Exactly what am I to do with their credentials? Their endorsements of climate scepticism based on what they perceive to be the politicization of the IPCC and other climate science organizations? Judging by their credentials, these people must have evidence to back up their claims, and that’s where the debate should be. If they don’t, they’re an embarrassment to the establishments that granted them degrees.
My political science professor said in my global politics class the other day that climate change is an issue that draws from natural science, political science, social science and economics. This leaves four axes of knowledge along any one of which a person can be misled. This is why the sceptics movement in the U.S. (largely funded by free-market think tanks and the auto and oil industries) has been so strong: so long as they can keep people’s understanding muddled and confused, they prevent change from occurring.
If Canada or the United States were an autocracy, the king/emperor/president-for-life would need very good, trustworthy advisors in all these fields to tackle the problem (assuming s/he’d want to). Canada and the U.S. are democracies, and so (theoretically) the people have power. Therefore, the people need to be educated in all these fields. Of course, I don’t mean only people with dual degrees in science and the humanities should be allowed to vote. Ordinary people don’t pick climate change policies; they pick people who pick people who pick climate policies. But what the voting population does need is enough knowledge and analytical experience to know when they’re being fed nonsense. Otherwise, people like Sen. Inhofe and his staff (or the people at the David Suzuki Foundation) will have absolute free reign to shape public opinion to suit their own political agendas.
So what to do? The next time you hear a speech on environmentalism, or are presented with yet another “hockey-stick graph” (a la Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation), look at it critically. Do research, and do your best to become informed. I know not everyone is cut out to get PhDs in environmental science, or political science for that matter. But power in this country, and in great industrialized countries around the world, belongs to the people, and those with power should never allow themselves to be patronized and treated like idiots. You have the power to make political change. Once you gain knowledge as well, nothing will stop you.
Oh, and don’t take my word for anything I’ve said here. If you’re not sure about a fact I’ve stated, look it up!
~Charles
P.S. Senator Inhofe has had Michael Crichton on the senate floor to argue the case of global warming scepticism. I wonder what Crichton would have thought of Inhofe’s blog post.
P.P.S. I can’t help myself. Quoting Crichton’s speech:
“I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%.”
The continental United States covers a total area of 9.83 million square kilometres. A square covering 5% of that would be around 700 kilometres to a side, or more than the entire state of New Mexico (New Mexico is around 500 kilometres to a side)! Imagine a city that large - it would be reminiscent of Blade Runner. In the bad way.
That was just for fun, an indication that 5% is a lot. We don’t have Blade Runner yet because that 5% is spread out quite well. But imagine if I crisscrossed the entire country with electric fences so that each square kilometre of the U.S. is fenced off. Surely that wouldn’t take more than 5% of the total U.S. land mass, and wouldn’t affect trees much, but I’ve effectively destroyed the habitat of any creature larger than a fox. Size doesn’t necessarily matter in such cases.
P.P.P.S. I realize that I have failied utterly to give credit where credit was due. It was Jacob who discovered the article, and it was Jacob who found the error, not me. Also, many of the ideas of this post result from productive discussion with Jacob. Sorry, Jacob!
Now, of course, I flew right into Crichton’s trap. My first reaction, righteous indignation, is exactly what an “environmental fundamentalist” would do, and any group that reacted to Crichton’s speech in a similar manner would just as much be inadvertently proving his point. The only good rebuttal is one that wields evidence. Scientists went after State of Fear for the representation of its data (http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm is an example, ignoring the political comments at the end). This is a science debate, and Crichton was absolutely right in saying that hard science, not politics, or ideology, or personal belief, should shape debate. The only arguments he makes that I would contend with are on the mindset of the climate science community and the validity of climate data.
But this isn’t a blog post about Crichton. (It isn’t?) This is a blog post about the politicization of science. Recently, Senator James Inhofe’s Environment and Public Works press blog had an article entitled “UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”, and subtitled “Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'”. (Access the article at: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6&Issue_id= .) When I read this, I immediately started to feel that righteous indignation boiling up again, but I calmed myself down, lest I fall into Crichton’s trap again.
As it turns out, the study, published in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters (http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL&sortBy=author), does not say that! Quoting from the abstract: “The strong correlation
between reconstructed temperature and solar activity suggests solar forcing as a main
driver for temperature variations during the period 1250-1850 in this region.” Furthermore, “Solar contribution to temperature change became less important during industrial period 1850-2000 in the Altai region”. On the fifty percent quip, “Our results are in agreement with studies based on NH temperature reconstructions [Scafetta et al., 2007] revealing that only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.” And note, this article is a study on one region in south-central Russia. There are two possible explanations for happened here: either one of Inhofe’s staff (or he himself) only read the last part of the last sentence of the conclusion (and you’re supposed to read the abstract!), or, for whatever reason, they cherry-picked phrases.
This is, purely and simply, a blatant misrepresentation of a legitimate scientific study. Add in the sensationalist headlines, and you have exactly what Crichton warned against: the politicization of science, and the corruption to public understanding it brings. Public understanding of climate change cannot be guided by U.S. senators or by ex-vice presidents or rock stars: they need to be dictated by the presentation of hard data and good interpretation. The senate minority report attached to the blog post is a list of (apparent; for all I know they could be misquoted) climate sceptics and their credentials. Exactly what am I to do with their credentials? Their endorsements of climate scepticism based on what they perceive to be the politicization of the IPCC and other climate science organizations? Judging by their credentials, these people must have evidence to back up their claims, and that’s where the debate should be. If they don’t, they’re an embarrassment to the establishments that granted them degrees.
My political science professor said in my global politics class the other day that climate change is an issue that draws from natural science, political science, social science and economics. This leaves four axes of knowledge along any one of which a person can be misled. This is why the sceptics movement in the U.S. (largely funded by free-market think tanks and the auto and oil industries) has been so strong: so long as they can keep people’s understanding muddled and confused, they prevent change from occurring.
If Canada or the United States were an autocracy, the king/emperor/president-for-life would need very good, trustworthy advisors in all these fields to tackle the problem (assuming s/he’d want to). Canada and the U.S. are democracies, and so (theoretically) the people have power. Therefore, the people need to be educated in all these fields. Of course, I don’t mean only people with dual degrees in science and the humanities should be allowed to vote. Ordinary people don’t pick climate change policies; they pick people who pick people who pick climate policies. But what the voting population does need is enough knowledge and analytical experience to know when they’re being fed nonsense. Otherwise, people like Sen. Inhofe and his staff (or the people at the David Suzuki Foundation) will have absolute free reign to shape public opinion to suit their own political agendas.
So what to do? The next time you hear a speech on environmentalism, or are presented with yet another “hockey-stick graph” (a la Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation), look at it critically. Do research, and do your best to become informed. I know not everyone is cut out to get PhDs in environmental science, or political science for that matter. But power in this country, and in great industrialized countries around the world, belongs to the people, and those with power should never allow themselves to be patronized and treated like idiots. You have the power to make political change. Once you gain knowledge as well, nothing will stop you.
Oh, and don’t take my word for anything I’ve said here. If you’re not sure about a fact I’ve stated, look it up!
~Charles
P.S. Senator Inhofe has had Michael Crichton on the senate floor to argue the case of global warming scepticism. I wonder what Crichton would have thought of Inhofe’s blog post.
P.P.S. I can’t help myself. Quoting Crichton’s speech:
“I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%.”
The continental United States covers a total area of 9.83 million square kilometres. A square covering 5% of that would be around 700 kilometres to a side, or more than the entire state of New Mexico (New Mexico is around 500 kilometres to a side)! Imagine a city that large - it would be reminiscent of Blade Runner. In the bad way.
That was just for fun, an indication that 5% is a lot. We don’t have Blade Runner yet because that 5% is spread out quite well. But imagine if I crisscrossed the entire country with electric fences so that each square kilometre of the U.S. is fenced off. Surely that wouldn’t take more than 5% of the total U.S. land mass, and wouldn’t affect trees much, but I’ve effectively destroyed the habitat of any creature larger than a fox. Size doesn’t necessarily matter in such cases.
P.P.P.S. I realize that I have failied utterly to give credit where credit was due. It was Jacob who discovered the article, and it was Jacob who found the error, not me. Also, many of the ideas of this post result from productive discussion with Jacob. Sorry, Jacob!
Friday, December 5, 2008
My lottery money just disappeared...and I'm famous
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a reality tv show like this?
People who won the lottery (grand prize) and are willing to donate 50% of their winnings to which ever cause they like will be filmed and featured. Follow where the money goes and where the person goes.
I wonder how many people would be willing to give up that much money to get 1 hour of national (maybe even international) TV fame?
I haven't done any research, but it seems like on average, the prize is around 3 million (?)....think of how many donations this reality TV show can get (each week!)
People who won the lottery (grand prize) and are willing to donate 50% of their winnings to which ever cause they like will be filmed and featured. Follow where the money goes and where the person goes.
I wonder how many people would be willing to give up that much money to get 1 hour of national (maybe even international) TV fame?
I haven't done any research, but it seems like on average, the prize is around 3 million (?)....think of how many donations this reality TV show can get (each week!)
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
To sell "less"
I was reading a post about how supermarkets are changing to green on monbiot.com
What if stores do start selling us "less"? As a product?
Why not? People bought indulgences; arguably, we're not much smarter today than we were then...
What if these "less" that we sell let's us display to others that we are cutting down on consumption? Maybe it's a badge we can display on facebook...or something like that.
"Hey! Look what I got you for christmas! 'Less'"
But there is a bigger contradiction than this, which has been overlooked by both the supermarkets and many of their critics. “The green movement,” Terry Leahy tells us, “must become a mass movement in green consumption.”(10) But what about consuming less? Less is the one thing the superstores cannot sell us. As further efficiencies become harder to extract, their growth will eventually outstrip all their reductions in the use of energy. This is not Tesco’s problem alone: the green movement’s economic alternatives still lack force.
What if stores do start selling us "less"? As a product?
Why not? People bought indulgences; arguably, we're not much smarter today than we were then...
What if these "less" that we sell let's us display to others that we are cutting down on consumption? Maybe it's a badge we can display on facebook...or something like that.
"Hey! Look what I got you for christmas! 'Less'"
Saturday, September 13, 2008
But what good can I do?
So my friends and I were having this discussion.
The Large Hadron Collider is just firing up, and the BBC reports that the project cost about 5 billion British pounds, took fourteen years to build, and occupied some 10,000 of the world's finest scientists. The collider is built to smash protons together at nearly the speed of light, and scientists will analyze the resulting collisions in hopes of finding out whether the current models of physics are right. The main experiment is an attempt to find the Higgs boson, a particle predicted to exist but which has not yet been observed.
What we were wondering about is, is this an ethical application of so much effort? Could it be put to better uses?
It's not just the LHC, though. The same question might be asked of publicly-funded science and engineering ventures, like the space shuttle programme, or basic science research, like the construction of a new radio telescope observatory.
So here's the question: Is it ethical to pour money into these projects, while there are still suffering people in the world?
It's a tough question to answer, especially if you're a young scientist thinking about what to do for your career. We want to do the right thing, of course. Should we put our own interests, curiosities, and fascinations on hold when there's others in need?
Well, I'll try my best to tackle this question.
People who say "no, it's not ethical" generally divide into two groups. The first argues that basic research like the LHC has no merit whatsoever, except perhaps to appease a small group of mad scientists who love building these giant accelerators. The second argues that, while these projects do have some value, it's not sufficient to merit the huge expense to the public.
The first is easy to refute. All we need to do is find some kind of practical benefit that can only have come about from these endeavours. I think it's not easy to come up with an exhaustive list, but I'll try to at least give some good examples.
Basic research means trying to learn about nature. It differs from inventing, which is applying what we know about nature to try to make our lives easier. Basic research includes proving math theorems, discovering Newton's laws of motion, learning what atoms are made of, finding out that the Earth goes around the sun and not vice versa, deciding on what gravity is, discovering the nature of DNA, and, yes, trying to tell whether or not the Higgs boson exists.
Well, to me at least, it seems like a strange claim to make that basic research is a less fruitful investment of effort than inventing. That's because we can't apply our knowledge of nature to make medicines and solar panels if we don't know how nature works in the first place! Mathematicians have a habit of engaging in research that seems to be so far removed from real life that it could never have applications. The worst of them are the Number Theorists, who are said to be deeply offended when it's suggested that their work could be put to practical use. But today, if you ever used a credit card online, number theory is at work keeping your personal information encrypted.
The way I see it, basic research tends to have lots of applications - but where and when they'll appear is impossible for anybody to predict. Half a century after J.J. Thompson discovered the electron came the invention of the transistor. It seems unlikely to me that the latter could have ever occurred without the former, but I doubt that Thompson could have ever dreamed what people might have used his research for. I'm sure that at the time, some people would have looked on his science as an ivory-towered pursuit. Now people learn about it in grade ten chemistry.
So my argument is that the benefits of basic research aren't so straightforward, but they do exist and they are significant.
The second is a bit more difficult. "If the benefits of basic research are so great", one may argue, "shouldn't the private sector perform it? Why spend so much public money?"
Some large private sector institutions (like Bell Labs) do give their scientists free range to do basic research, but it's pretty risky. It's difficult to make a business out of basic research, because no matter how savvy of a businessperson you are, or how smart your scientists are, you can't guarantee a big discovery. Furthermore - and this is the key point - you usually can't start with an invention in mind (like a transistor) that you could present to investors, and then ask your scientists to discover the electron so that you can build it. That just doesn't make sense!
The scope of our inventiveness is limited by the science that we already understand. It's impossible to predict how extending the range of our understanding will translate into new inventions. What we can say is that it's never a bad thing to learn a little bit more, and whenever we do, people look to see what new things will be made possible from that pursuit.
Well, okay. I didn't get to the heart of the moral question, but I did address a small part of it. That's probably enough for one day :)
-- Jacob
The Large Hadron Collider is just firing up, and the BBC reports that the project cost about 5 billion British pounds, took fourteen years to build, and occupied some 10,000 of the world's finest scientists. The collider is built to smash protons together at nearly the speed of light, and scientists will analyze the resulting collisions in hopes of finding out whether the current models of physics are right. The main experiment is an attempt to find the Higgs boson, a particle predicted to exist but which has not yet been observed.
What we were wondering about is, is this an ethical application of so much effort? Could it be put to better uses?
It's not just the LHC, though. The same question might be asked of publicly-funded science and engineering ventures, like the space shuttle programme, or basic science research, like the construction of a new radio telescope observatory.
So here's the question: Is it ethical to pour money into these projects, while there are still suffering people in the world?
It's a tough question to answer, especially if you're a young scientist thinking about what to do for your career. We want to do the right thing, of course. Should we put our own interests, curiosities, and fascinations on hold when there's others in need?
Well, I'll try my best to tackle this question.
People who say "no, it's not ethical" generally divide into two groups. The first argues that basic research like the LHC has no merit whatsoever, except perhaps to appease a small group of mad scientists who love building these giant accelerators. The second argues that, while these projects do have some value, it's not sufficient to merit the huge expense to the public.
The first is easy to refute. All we need to do is find some kind of practical benefit that can only have come about from these endeavours. I think it's not easy to come up with an exhaustive list, but I'll try to at least give some good examples.
Basic research means trying to learn about nature. It differs from inventing, which is applying what we know about nature to try to make our lives easier. Basic research includes proving math theorems, discovering Newton's laws of motion, learning what atoms are made of, finding out that the Earth goes around the sun and not vice versa, deciding on what gravity is, discovering the nature of DNA, and, yes, trying to tell whether or not the Higgs boson exists.
Well, to me at least, it seems like a strange claim to make that basic research is a less fruitful investment of effort than inventing. That's because we can't apply our knowledge of nature to make medicines and solar panels if we don't know how nature works in the first place! Mathematicians have a habit of engaging in research that seems to be so far removed from real life that it could never have applications. The worst of them are the Number Theorists, who are said to be deeply offended when it's suggested that their work could be put to practical use. But today, if you ever used a credit card online, number theory is at work keeping your personal information encrypted.
The way I see it, basic research tends to have lots of applications - but where and when they'll appear is impossible for anybody to predict. Half a century after J.J. Thompson discovered the electron came the invention of the transistor. It seems unlikely to me that the latter could have ever occurred without the former, but I doubt that Thompson could have ever dreamed what people might have used his research for. I'm sure that at the time, some people would have looked on his science as an ivory-towered pursuit. Now people learn about it in grade ten chemistry.
So my argument is that the benefits of basic research aren't so straightforward, but they do exist and they are significant.
The second is a bit more difficult. "If the benefits of basic research are so great", one may argue, "shouldn't the private sector perform it? Why spend so much public money?"
Some large private sector institutions (like Bell Labs) do give their scientists free range to do basic research, but it's pretty risky. It's difficult to make a business out of basic research, because no matter how savvy of a businessperson you are, or how smart your scientists are, you can't guarantee a big discovery. Furthermore - and this is the key point - you usually can't start with an invention in mind (like a transistor) that you could present to investors, and then ask your scientists to discover the electron so that you can build it. That just doesn't make sense!
The scope of our inventiveness is limited by the science that we already understand. It's impossible to predict how extending the range of our understanding will translate into new inventions. What we can say is that it's never a bad thing to learn a little bit more, and whenever we do, people look to see what new things will be made possible from that pursuit.
Well, okay. I didn't get to the heart of the moral question, but I did address a small part of it. That's probably enough for one day :)
-- Jacob
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Vertical Farms...radical?
New, ambitious design for vertical farms report from the website globe.net
My first response: very typically a modernist approach to nature -- subdue and control. Put nature in a totally human controlled environment and try to control it so it serves only our needs. The arrogance that humans will always find a way to push nature's limits to growth...3 billion more people? No problem! Just farm into the sky!
My second response: maybe it's not such a bad idea... a natural ecosystem is also made up with layers and levels. Nutrients are cycled and everything gets reused. Is it so bad to make an artificial ecosystem with many more layers? Is this really the modernist perspective? Or are we moving from a modernist perspective to one that incorporates nature into our basic thinking?
...who knows?
My question would be...where in the world would they find so much good soil without recking current ecosystems, and how are they going to get enough sunlight into the building for 30 stories of plants?
Dickson Despommier of the Department of Environmental Health Sciences Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University told his students to "forget about money, space and time, and design a building that will feed and hydrate 50,000 people a year." I wanted individuals to eat 2,000 calories a day and drink water created by evapotranspiration" he said.The result?
It is estimated that one vertical farm with an architectural footprint of one square city block and rising up to 30 stories (approximately 3 million square feet) could provide enough nutrition (at 2,000 calories/day/person) to comfortably accommodate the needs of 10,000 people employing technologies currently available.
My first response: very typically a modernist approach to nature -- subdue and control. Put nature in a totally human controlled environment and try to control it so it serves only our needs. The arrogance that humans will always find a way to push nature's limits to growth...3 billion more people? No problem! Just farm into the sky!
My second response: maybe it's not such a bad idea... a natural ecosystem is also made up with layers and levels. Nutrients are cycled and everything gets reused. Is it so bad to make an artificial ecosystem with many more layers? Is this really the modernist perspective? Or are we moving from a modernist perspective to one that incorporates nature into our basic thinking?
...who knows?
My question would be...where in the world would they find so much good soil without recking current ecosystems, and how are they going to get enough sunlight into the building for 30 stories of plants?
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I am the sunk cost
Recently, my work place has been trying to save every pence because they've gone way over budget for this year, and it's not even half way through the fiscal year.
My supervisor couldn't even order some name tags for a conference because of the budget cuts. So I've had to come up with innovative ways to make materials we need for our displays etc. The most recent project was to make brochure holders out of cardboard and other "waste" material.
Common sense would dictate that it's absolutely insane that I would be paid so much to make brochure stands! It's probably only $5 to buy them...but they have to pay me way more in wages to make them.
But I realised today why it is actually rational (or at least reasonable) that I should make the stands.
I'm the sunk cost in this equation! My wages are already set aside because they have to employ me until my term ends. That means my wages cannot be reclaimed no matter what they do..it's not like they can buy the brochure stands and tell me to stop working for 2 hours, i.e. my wages are 'sunk' in economic terms.
Maybe wages shouldn't be sunk at all. I think it happens in both pay by the hour and pay by the month systems....I wonder if this kind of absurdity happens in successful businesses like microsoft?
My supervisor couldn't even order some name tags for a conference because of the budget cuts. So I've had to come up with innovative ways to make materials we need for our displays etc. The most recent project was to make brochure holders out of cardboard and other "waste" material.
Common sense would dictate that it's absolutely insane that I would be paid so much to make brochure stands! It's probably only $5 to buy them...but they have to pay me way more in wages to make them.
But I realised today why it is actually rational (or at least reasonable) that I should make the stands.
I'm the sunk cost in this equation! My wages are already set aside because they have to employ me until my term ends. That means my wages cannot be reclaimed no matter what they do..it's not like they can buy the brochure stands and tell me to stop working for 2 hours, i.e. my wages are 'sunk' in economic terms.
Maybe wages shouldn't be sunk at all. I think it happens in both pay by the hour and pay by the month systems....I wonder if this kind of absurdity happens in successful businesses like microsoft?
Why the night?
"Why is it more dangerous at night than in the day?" My friend asked me this question the other day...and we couldn't reach a satisfactory answer.
May it's because ...
1. It is darker, so less visibility, so when bad people do bad things, they are less likely to be seen
2. it's traditionally been that way
3. ghosts and bad spirits come out at night making people do bad things (:P)
Although the most plausible is probably because most respectable jobs are in the morning (because there used to be no lights, so people couldnt' work at night), so people who were awake and moving around at night didn't have a respectable day job. So gradually these people gave the night a bad name?
Maybe one way to make crime rates at night go down is to put more respectable jobs at night. Especially now, when lots of business has to be done with people half way around the globe, working at night doesn't seem to be such a bizzare idea.
May it's because ...
1. It is darker, so less visibility, so when bad people do bad things, they are less likely to be seen
2. it's traditionally been that way
3. ghosts and bad spirits come out at night making people do bad things (:P)
Although the most plausible is probably because most respectable jobs are in the morning (because there used to be no lights, so people couldnt' work at night), so people who were awake and moving around at night didn't have a respectable day job. So gradually these people gave the night a bad name?
Maybe one way to make crime rates at night go down is to put more respectable jobs at night. Especially now, when lots of business has to be done with people half way around the globe, working at night doesn't seem to be such a bizzare idea.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
excercise bath tub
Have you seen those bathtubs/showers for people who want to sit in their bath tub (usually for old or handicapped people)? They open from the side, have a seat in them...basically it looks like a raised up jacuzzi.
Why can't people make this kind of bath tub into a standing pool? You can bathe in it, or swim (on the spot) in it. Works great for people who want to run but can't due to their knees or something. Aquatic exercise in your own bathtub! :)
Why can't people make this kind of bath tub into a standing pool? You can bathe in it, or swim (on the spot) in it. Works great for people who want to run but can't due to their knees or something. Aquatic exercise in your own bathtub! :)
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Buddhist farming
Workless farming? Those two words seem to be an oxymoron. Well, not to Fukuoka Masanobu, the author of "The One Straw Revoluntion"and the founder of the Fukuoka method of farming.
His philosophy is that we should learn how to do less with plants to get more yield, instead of conventional farming, which is to work more for the plant (e.g. use pesticides so the plant doesn't need to fight of pests), so that the plant can concentrate on growing.
He spent 30 years perfecting a system to grow food with the least energy. He has four principles: No cultivation. No fertilizer. No weeding. No pesticides. He claims he can produce enough food to match conventional farming techniques on the same amount of land.
Here's an example of his method (from wikipedia):
His philosophy is that we should learn how to do less with plants to get more yield, instead of conventional farming, which is to work more for the plant (e.g. use pesticides so the plant doesn't need to fight of pests), so that the plant can concentrate on growing.
He spent 30 years perfecting a system to grow food with the least energy. He has four principles: No cultivation. No fertilizer. No weeding. No pesticides. He claims he can produce enough food to match conventional farming techniques on the same amount of land.
Here's an example of his method (from wikipedia):
There is no plowing, as the seed germinates quite happily on the surface if the right conditions are provided. There is also considerable emphasis on maintaining diversity. A ground cover of white clover grows under the grain plants to provide nitrogen. Weeds (and Daikons) are also considered part of the ecosystem, periodically cut and allowed to lie on the surface so the nutrients they contain are returned to
the soil. Ducks are let into the grain plot, and specific insectivorous carp into the rice paddy at certain times of the year to eat slugs and other pests.The ground
is always covered. As well as the clover and weeds, there is the straw from the previous crop, which is used as mulch, and each grain crop is sown before the previous one is harvested. This is done by broadcasting the seed among the standing crop. Also he re-introduced the ancient technique of seed balls. The seed for next season's crop is mixed with clay, compost, and sometimes manure, and formed into small balls. The result is a denser crop of smaller but highly productive and stronger plants.
He continued on this path of farming because of inspiration from Buddhism: the concept of "mu," which means nothingness, to return to a state of "do-nothing." (Hard to understand for me western types...do nothing sounds just lazy).
I think more parts of our life can be like the Fukuoka method of farming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
