Having spent the last several posts on the environment, I want to turn next in a completely different direction. At this point, I wouldn't blame people for thinking I was in the Green Party, despite my sincere effort to develop a more realistic and market-oriented environmental outlook. Now, though, I want to go to an issue that is at the heart of Canada's conservative movement as it exists today, and yet which nothing ever seems to get done on. That is the issue of democratic reform.
Democratic reform in Canada is necessary for a variety of reasons. Among them are the following:
1. The nature of our multiparty system means that the seat count in the House often does not correlate well with the popular vote.
2. As a result of item 1, ~8% of Canadians are without representation because the party they vote for has no members in the House of Commons or the Senate.
3. In regions where a single party dominates, the dissenting voters feel as if their votes do not count. For example, consider Liberal or NDP supporters in Alberta, or Conservative supporters in Montreal or Toronto.
4. Our current electoral system makes influential regional parties possible, which is generally counterproductive to finding national solutions to national problems. The Bloc Quebecois currently garners 10% or so of the national vote but can concievably win nearly 20% of the seats in the Commons.
5. One of the Senate's designed purposes is to provide for regional representation in the government. The Senate cannot currently do this effectively because of the public backlash that would result from the Senate overruling the democratically elected Commons.
6. The tendency in Canada towards stable, long-term, single party dynasties in the House of Commons, and the fact that Senators are appointed rather than elected, make it likely that the Senate will be dominated by a single party.
7. The Senate is expensive to administer, and in its present form it is not an efficient use of taxpayer money.
These reasons make democratic reform an attractive proposition. However, it is difficult because many of the proposed solutions to the above problems would require significant overhaul of Canada's electoral system, and likely at least one constitutional amendment. This would be a time-consuming process and would likely fail because of the provincial approval requirements for such amendments.
There has been strong pressure on the government for some time to tackle democratic reform, and many potential solutions have been put forward. I want to address two of these in particular.
The first proposal is to switch the method of election in the House of Commons to be by proportional representation. This would solve issues 1, 2, 3 and 4, but would cause a myriad of other problems. The most important of these would be that it would essentially wipe out the possiblity of a majority government, and force a constant succession of minority or coalition governments. Given how minority governments have generally performed in the past, Canada would likely be faced with a federal government that would have a very hard time accomplishing anything and would almost certainly have very frequent elections.
The second oft-discussed proposition that would address some of these problems is ameding the constitution to provide for a directly elected Senate, which would then have a greater mandate to exercise its powers. This would solve problems 5, 6 and 7, but would create problems akin to those in the United States, where progress could be impeded by a stalemate situation if a different party controlled the Senate and the Commons.
Taken together, the two above reforms would address the concerns I have outlined. However, as I have mentioned, they have significant drawbacks.As an alternative to these proposals, I would advocate the following actions, which I believe would go a long way towards solving many of Canada's democratic reform issues.
1. Pass the previously proposed legislation setting 8 year term limits for senators.
2. Pass legislation requiring the Governor General (on the PM's advice) to appoint senators with party affliliations corresponding to the proportion of the popular vote achieved by the parties in the last election, provided that the party with the greatest differential achieved at least 5% of the vote in the province the Senate seat is allocated to.
Appointments would be based on whichever party currently has the largest percentage discrepancy between their senate representation and their vote share. For example, the situation after the 2008 election looked like this:
Liberal Party- 2008 Popular Vote 26.26% and 55.24% of Senators
Conservative Party- 2008 Popular Vote 37.65% and 20% of Senators
New Democratic Party- 2008 Popular Vote 18.18% and 0.95% of Senators
Green Party- 2008 Popular Vote 6.78% and no Senators
Bloc Quebecois- 2008 Popular Vote 9.98% and no Senators
Other- 2008 Popular Vote 1.15% and 7.62% of Senators
16.19% of Senate Seats (17) were vacant
This makes the percentage differentials as follows:
Liberals- (28.98)
Conservatives- 17.65
NDP- 17.23
Green- 6.78
Bloc- 9.98
Under my plan, the 17 vacant seats should have been filled as follows:
9 Conservative Senators from the appropriate provinces
8 NDP Senators from the appropriate provinces
This changes the percentage differentials to the following:
Liberal- (28.98)
Conservative- 9.10
NDP-9.63
Green- 6.78
Bloc- 9.98
Say that the following year, there were 14 senators whose terms expired, 5 Conservatives, 5 Liberals and 4 Independents. This would result in the following adjustments and differential changes:
Appointment of 8 Conservative Senators (New Differential:6.25)
Appointment of 3 NDP Senators (New Diff: 6.78)
Appointment of 3 Bloc Senators (New Diff: 7.13)
Green Diff: 6.78
Liberal Diff: (24.23)
Say, however, that only two of the Senators whose terms are expiring in my hypothetical are from Quebec. This would preclude the appointment of more than 2 Bloc Senators, being that the BQ did not achieve 5% of the popular vote in any other province. The remaining seat would be allocated to the party with the next highest total, which in this case is a tie between the NDP and the Greens. In the event of such a tie, my proposal would be to allocate the seat to the party with the fewest Senators, in which case the Greens would get that seat.
3. Once the previous legislation was in place, I would consider a third piece of legislation mandating the appointment of Senators elected in provincial elections (such as those in Alberta and those proposed in Saskatchewan) assuming that their party affiliation is compatible with the legislation I have outlined above. This would simply provide further democratization to the Senate.
I believe that these three legislative actions, combined with the willingness of the new, much more democratic Senate to make more effective use of its designated powers and authority, would address all the problems I have outlined with regard to democratic reform and the Senate, without requiring a constitutional amendment and without creating huge legislative gridlock. It would also probably have the advantage of being easy to pass, as it is highly likely the NDP would support the Conservative government on this proposal, given what they stand to gain and the fact they support abolishing the Senate in its current form.
I would also support a fourth piece of legislation that also has to do with democratic reform, but which is mostly unrelated to the issues above. I believe that Canada is failing to take advantage of one of the prime advantages of our derided first-past-the-post system in the Commons. This is that each riding is represented by their own MP, who is supposed to be responsive to their needs and desires.
However, in Canada, having your own MP is basically useless because party discipline is so strong. I would wholeheartedly support legislation that made it illegal for political parties to take disciplinary action against their members for breaking with party line. For practical reasons, it is possible that budget votes could be exempt from this rule, but think of how much more representative and dynamic our politics would be if your MP actually supported your interests as opposed to those of his party.
Democratic renewal is one issue where the Reform party had it exactly right. Without a reformed Senate, and without some changes to increase citizen involvement in the political process, Canada cannot be a model 21st century nation.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Engines of Creation (6 of 6)
One of the strangest things I have noticed about many environmentally-conscious people is their dislike of technology. This is far from being a universal trait, but it seems to be prevalent enough that many potential solutions to environmental problems are ignored or even opposed because of opposition to technology. (In the same way, many pragmatic and effective market-based solutions to environmental problems are ignored because of anti-globalization, anti-capitalist beliefs that are disproportionately common within the environmental movement)
The only reason that I can think of that would explain my observations is that people, consciously or unconsciously, believe that it is technology that has caused all of the environmental problems we have today, and is therefore a thing to be reviled.
Indeed, this argument has been brought up, with a number of searing critiques of technology and the steep price industrial society has paid for its use. Critics contend that technology limits freedom and privacy and has caused most of humanity's current problems, including but not limited to environmental problems, disease, religious extremism, human rights issues and the breakdown of family groups. They also note that technology has created existential threats to the existence of humanity such as nuclear war.
This viewpoint suggests that future policy should be turned towards the gradual abandonment of technology, including agriculture, and an eventual return to a hunter-gatherer existence, which supporters contend is the best form of human organization to ever exist. They support this claim through studies of hunter-gatherers past and present, which generally show them to have been relatively egalitarian, living comfortable lives in harmony with nature, and using far less of their time for "work" and much more for "leisure".
On the surface, that all seems very sensible. However, I have come to believe that the anti-technology viewpoint and associated "anarcho-primitivism" has several fundamental flaws. These include the following:
1. Although technology has created new existential threats to humanity, it has also given, or has the potential to give, protection against other existential threats. Without technology, the probability of human extinction within a relatively short time span (millions of years) is very likely 1.
This is because a non-technological society would be unable to survive an event like a massive asteroid impact, or as my brother awesomely points out, an alien invasion. Given the frequency of extinction-level events in the Earth's history, and the likelihood of large, land-based life surviving such an event, simple statistics show that our species has no chance of survival.
On the other hand, with technology, the probability of our extinction within millions of years may be close to 1 (it may even be .99), but it is not 1. There is a chance, however slim, that humanity could continue to exist until the end of the universe. It is therefore in our self-interest to develop technology, and even if one argues that self-interest should not be a factor, I also believe, as I will explain, that it is our moral imperative to prolong the survival of our species.
2. Someone might respond to argument #1 by saying that it is more important that humans live happily and with dignity than that we survive a long time. They might say that surviving forever in an exploitative and hierarchical society is not worth the pain, and that being hunter-gatherers is our best way to happiness.
I would reply to this by saying that even if the hunter-gatherer existence is the happiest and most egalitarian society to date, our collective experience has shown, with a high degree of probability, that it is not the happiest and most egalitarian society that could exist.
We can conceive of a high-technology society where the principle of scarcity would no longer apply and people would be free to spend their time doing whatever they find fulfilling, without hunter-gatherer constraints of ignorance and short lifespans. (See Star Trek). Because we can conceive of it, some people will try to make it a reality. If it can be done, it will be done, and the only way to prevent the attempt is through repression and control. The totalitarianism this implies is certain, whereas the assertion that technology will eventually cause totalitarianism is an uncertain hypothesis. In this case, I prefer the uncertain future.
3. My third argument for technology is the one I personally find most convincing. It has to do with nothing less than the meaning of life. As Sax Russell points out in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars,
"The beauty of (the universe) exists in the human mind. Without the human presence it is just a collection of atoms...It's we who understand it, and we who give it meaning...Science is part of a larger human enterprise, and that enterprise includes going to the stars, adapting to other planets, adapting them to us.
(Our experience) indicates that life is rare, and intelligent life even rarer. And yet the whole meaning of the universe, its beauty, exists in the consciousness of intelligent life. We are the consciousness of the universe, our job is to spread that around, to go look at things, and to live everywhere we can. It is too dangerous to keep the consciousness of the universe on only one planet, it could be wiped out..."
I believe this statement. I believe that only consciousness, the ability to ask why and the ability to appreciate beauty, brings meaning to the universe. Therefore, I believe it is our moral imperative to preserve the survival of this meaning, any way we can. It is also our responsibility as a species to expand the meaning of the universe through science, through the acquisition of knowledge, and through exploration. We can do none of this without technology. To remain in a tiny corner of the cosmos, ignorant of what is going on around us, is to deny the purpose of our existence. Whatever the cost, whatever the hardship, we must learn, we must explore and we must strive to understand. It is our nature, and it is our destiny.
I suppose it is also worth mentioning the practical along with the ideological. The Earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers. If agriculture and all subsequent technology vanished tomorrow, or was phased out over a period less than many centuries, chaos would result. Six billion humans, all trying to survive, would destroy the environment and each other far faster than any industrial society. Every species that could be eaten would be wiped out of existence, and every edible plant would be stripped clean. Then people would turn on each other, and before everything came back to balance, I would be willing to wager that at least five billion people would be dead.
Now the point of all this argument is that technology should not be feared or hated by those concerned about the environment. While it is true that technology cannot solve all of our environmental problems, especially not in the short and medium term, it should be viewed as a stalwart ally of the cause. I want to address a few specific cases where technology has enormous potential to help us, but where objections have been raised.
1. Nuclear Fusion
The prevailing opinion about fusion seems to be either that it is impossible to harness as a net source of electricity, or else that it is too dangerous to try. Both of these opinions are false. Fusion is technically difficult, yes, but that should never be taken to mean it won't work. Just like building boats or airplanes or spacecraft, it is possible, it just requires effort and support.
The second objection is even more ludicrous. Fusion is clean energy, it produces no emissions. Fusion disasters are impossible because if containment was ever breached, the reaction (unlike fission) would cease almost immediately. Fusion also produces much less radioactive waste than fission, and none of it is long-lived. Fusion has the potential to supply far more energy on Earth than any other clean source, and has the potential to generate power of the scales necessary for interplanetary colonization. I believe fusion is the energy of the future, and I believe the time to start is now.
2. GMO Foods
The outcry over GMO foods is, in my opinion, akin to saying that we should have held off on giving out the vaccines for smallpox and polio for the last 100 years because we "weren't sure" whether vaccination has any harmful effects.
GMO foods have the potential to help humanity in a lot of ways. GMO foods can be made to require less pesticide, good for the environment. They can be made to require less water and fertilizer, good for the environment. They can be made higher-yielding and reduce land use, good for the environment. They will be a key component of any vertical farming scheme. Coincidentally, they can also be more nutritious and help alleviate food shortages. I know that not all of these things have been done, but my point is only that they are possible and beneficial. (The corporate control issues are an entirely different argument)
All those benefits, and not a single shred of conclusive evidence that they have any harmful effects whatsoever, and there is still an outcry. The only argument I hear that's even worth mentioning is that GMO strains will "run wild" and eliminate the "natural" species. I don't buy that, because I don't see a difference between a mutation done in a lab and one done randomly by nature. Let evolution do its work. If all tomatoes in the world become frost resistant, is that so terrible? And I feel that it's worth noting, if only facetiously, that if anything ever went wrong, systematically wiping out an entire species has proven to be something humans are very, very good at.
I am not saying that regulation is not necessary, nor that products like Roundup Ready soybeans should be approved, just that with intelligent regulation, GMO foods can help our world immeasurably.
3. Nanotechnology
There is an outcry about this one before it has even been really invented. Yes, we have some nanotech-related technologies, like carbon nanotubes, but "real" nanotech, meaning machines capable of manipulating matter at the atomic level, is still a long way off.
Still, there are well publicized views that nanotech will lead to the destruction of earth in a "grey goo" scenario. I think this view underestimates the ability of science and government to build in safeguards and regulations. Specifically, from what I understand, it is unlikely that nanites will have a self contained power source. If current thinking is correct, they will be suspended in some type of conductive fluid that will then have an electric current run through it. Any problems can be solved by simply shutting off the power.
I realize the potential for nano-terrorism, but I don't think it is any more dangerous than say, an airborne version of Ebola, and I think it is unlikely for the same reason. Terrorists are not going to be able to build nanotech in a cave, or even in a garage. I would be far more concerned with nuclear terrorism.
4. Problems associated with renewable energy technology
I understand that these technologies have problems. Wind turbines kill birds and (especially) bats. Dams have a number of drawbacks. Even solar has its issues. But choosing not to pursue these technologies, and others, because they have some problems is, I believe, a serious underestimation of human ingenuity. I have every confidence that these problems will be mitigated with a little trial and error.
I am sure I have missed some technologies here, but take away from this (and all the other posts in this series) a more general message: A rational and effective environmental policy that does minimal economic harm is possible. A better world is possible. Most of all, we should leave no stone unturned in our efforts to make such a world. If something works,do it. Don't let ideology overpower pragmatism. Don't let doubt overpower idealism.
Get it done. Shikata Ga Nai (There is no other choice).
Happy Earth Day!
The only reason that I can think of that would explain my observations is that people, consciously or unconsciously, believe that it is technology that has caused all of the environmental problems we have today, and is therefore a thing to be reviled.
Indeed, this argument has been brought up, with a number of searing critiques of technology and the steep price industrial society has paid for its use. Critics contend that technology limits freedom and privacy and has caused most of humanity's current problems, including but not limited to environmental problems, disease, religious extremism, human rights issues and the breakdown of family groups. They also note that technology has created existential threats to the existence of humanity such as nuclear war.
This viewpoint suggests that future policy should be turned towards the gradual abandonment of technology, including agriculture, and an eventual return to a hunter-gatherer existence, which supporters contend is the best form of human organization to ever exist. They support this claim through studies of hunter-gatherers past and present, which generally show them to have been relatively egalitarian, living comfortable lives in harmony with nature, and using far less of their time for "work" and much more for "leisure".
On the surface, that all seems very sensible. However, I have come to believe that the anti-technology viewpoint and associated "anarcho-primitivism" has several fundamental flaws. These include the following:
1. Although technology has created new existential threats to humanity, it has also given, or has the potential to give, protection against other existential threats. Without technology, the probability of human extinction within a relatively short time span (millions of years) is very likely 1.
This is because a non-technological society would be unable to survive an event like a massive asteroid impact, or as my brother awesomely points out, an alien invasion. Given the frequency of extinction-level events in the Earth's history, and the likelihood of large, land-based life surviving such an event, simple statistics show that our species has no chance of survival.
On the other hand, with technology, the probability of our extinction within millions of years may be close to 1 (it may even be .99), but it is not 1. There is a chance, however slim, that humanity could continue to exist until the end of the universe. It is therefore in our self-interest to develop technology, and even if one argues that self-interest should not be a factor, I also believe, as I will explain, that it is our moral imperative to prolong the survival of our species.
2. Someone might respond to argument #1 by saying that it is more important that humans live happily and with dignity than that we survive a long time. They might say that surviving forever in an exploitative and hierarchical society is not worth the pain, and that being hunter-gatherers is our best way to happiness.
I would reply to this by saying that even if the hunter-gatherer existence is the happiest and most egalitarian society to date, our collective experience has shown, with a high degree of probability, that it is not the happiest and most egalitarian society that could exist.
We can conceive of a high-technology society where the principle of scarcity would no longer apply and people would be free to spend their time doing whatever they find fulfilling, without hunter-gatherer constraints of ignorance and short lifespans. (See Star Trek). Because we can conceive of it, some people will try to make it a reality. If it can be done, it will be done, and the only way to prevent the attempt is through repression and control. The totalitarianism this implies is certain, whereas the assertion that technology will eventually cause totalitarianism is an uncertain hypothesis. In this case, I prefer the uncertain future.
3. My third argument for technology is the one I personally find most convincing. It has to do with nothing less than the meaning of life. As Sax Russell points out in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars,
"The beauty of (the universe) exists in the human mind. Without the human presence it is just a collection of atoms...It's we who understand it, and we who give it meaning...Science is part of a larger human enterprise, and that enterprise includes going to the stars, adapting to other planets, adapting them to us.
(Our experience) indicates that life is rare, and intelligent life even rarer. And yet the whole meaning of the universe, its beauty, exists in the consciousness of intelligent life. We are the consciousness of the universe, our job is to spread that around, to go look at things, and to live everywhere we can. It is too dangerous to keep the consciousness of the universe on only one planet, it could be wiped out..."
I believe this statement. I believe that only consciousness, the ability to ask why and the ability to appreciate beauty, brings meaning to the universe. Therefore, I believe it is our moral imperative to preserve the survival of this meaning, any way we can. It is also our responsibility as a species to expand the meaning of the universe through science, through the acquisition of knowledge, and through exploration. We can do none of this without technology. To remain in a tiny corner of the cosmos, ignorant of what is going on around us, is to deny the purpose of our existence. Whatever the cost, whatever the hardship, we must learn, we must explore and we must strive to understand. It is our nature, and it is our destiny.
I suppose it is also worth mentioning the practical along with the ideological. The Earth cannot support six billion hunter-gatherers. If agriculture and all subsequent technology vanished tomorrow, or was phased out over a period less than many centuries, chaos would result. Six billion humans, all trying to survive, would destroy the environment and each other far faster than any industrial society. Every species that could be eaten would be wiped out of existence, and every edible plant would be stripped clean. Then people would turn on each other, and before everything came back to balance, I would be willing to wager that at least five billion people would be dead.
Now the point of all this argument is that technology should not be feared or hated by those concerned about the environment. While it is true that technology cannot solve all of our environmental problems, especially not in the short and medium term, it should be viewed as a stalwart ally of the cause. I want to address a few specific cases where technology has enormous potential to help us, but where objections have been raised.
1. Nuclear Fusion
The prevailing opinion about fusion seems to be either that it is impossible to harness as a net source of electricity, or else that it is too dangerous to try. Both of these opinions are false. Fusion is technically difficult, yes, but that should never be taken to mean it won't work. Just like building boats or airplanes or spacecraft, it is possible, it just requires effort and support.
The second objection is even more ludicrous. Fusion is clean energy, it produces no emissions. Fusion disasters are impossible because if containment was ever breached, the reaction (unlike fission) would cease almost immediately. Fusion also produces much less radioactive waste than fission, and none of it is long-lived. Fusion has the potential to supply far more energy on Earth than any other clean source, and has the potential to generate power of the scales necessary for interplanetary colonization. I believe fusion is the energy of the future, and I believe the time to start is now.
2. GMO Foods
The outcry over GMO foods is, in my opinion, akin to saying that we should have held off on giving out the vaccines for smallpox and polio for the last 100 years because we "weren't sure" whether vaccination has any harmful effects.
GMO foods have the potential to help humanity in a lot of ways. GMO foods can be made to require less pesticide, good for the environment. They can be made to require less water and fertilizer, good for the environment. They can be made higher-yielding and reduce land use, good for the environment. They will be a key component of any vertical farming scheme. Coincidentally, they can also be more nutritious and help alleviate food shortages. I know that not all of these things have been done, but my point is only that they are possible and beneficial. (The corporate control issues are an entirely different argument)
All those benefits, and not a single shred of conclusive evidence that they have any harmful effects whatsoever, and there is still an outcry. The only argument I hear that's even worth mentioning is that GMO strains will "run wild" and eliminate the "natural" species. I don't buy that, because I don't see a difference between a mutation done in a lab and one done randomly by nature. Let evolution do its work. If all tomatoes in the world become frost resistant, is that so terrible? And I feel that it's worth noting, if only facetiously, that if anything ever went wrong, systematically wiping out an entire species has proven to be something humans are very, very good at.
I am not saying that regulation is not necessary, nor that products like Roundup Ready soybeans should be approved, just that with intelligent regulation, GMO foods can help our world immeasurably.
3. Nanotechnology
There is an outcry about this one before it has even been really invented. Yes, we have some nanotech-related technologies, like carbon nanotubes, but "real" nanotech, meaning machines capable of manipulating matter at the atomic level, is still a long way off.
Still, there are well publicized views that nanotech will lead to the destruction of earth in a "grey goo" scenario. I think this view underestimates the ability of science and government to build in safeguards and regulations. Specifically, from what I understand, it is unlikely that nanites will have a self contained power source. If current thinking is correct, they will be suspended in some type of conductive fluid that will then have an electric current run through it. Any problems can be solved by simply shutting off the power.
I realize the potential for nano-terrorism, but I don't think it is any more dangerous than say, an airborne version of Ebola, and I think it is unlikely for the same reason. Terrorists are not going to be able to build nanotech in a cave, or even in a garage. I would be far more concerned with nuclear terrorism.
4. Problems associated with renewable energy technology
I understand that these technologies have problems. Wind turbines kill birds and (especially) bats. Dams have a number of drawbacks. Even solar has its issues. But choosing not to pursue these technologies, and others, because they have some problems is, I believe, a serious underestimation of human ingenuity. I have every confidence that these problems will be mitigated with a little trial and error.
I am sure I have missed some technologies here, but take away from this (and all the other posts in this series) a more general message: A rational and effective environmental policy that does minimal economic harm is possible. A better world is possible. Most of all, we should leave no stone unturned in our efforts to make such a world. If something works,do it. Don't let ideology overpower pragmatism. Don't let doubt overpower idealism.
Get it done. Shikata Ga Nai (There is no other choice).
Happy Earth Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)